Are "Tourist Traps" really that bad?

I was inspired to write this after reading a discussion on a messageboard about the semantics about what makes a tourist trap. The debate was whether something not built specifically for tourists could be a tourist trap. I think in the end it doesn't really matter. They're both tourist traps. But I think the way we travelers view them does make a difference.

So ultimately, I think there are two kinds of tourist traps. Those things built or in existence solely to attract tourist dollars and those things that have become, over time, tourist traps for one reason or another. Fitting into the first group would be places like The Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas or the imported crappy mask stands in Venice's Piazza San Marco. Fitting into the second group are places like Florence's Ponte Vecchio, which is lined with pricey gold shops, or the subject of the debate that inspired this post, the Tower of Pisa.

I think the difference, while it might be esoteric, is an important one for us travelers. For those of us who are travelers who put great importance on experiencing the real culture of a place we travel to, I think part of that includes supporting the local economy and those people and places that work so hard to remain great. It is important to me to know where my money goes, and by and large the first kind of traps are run by people whose sole existence in life is to make money off of me.

Of course, the line can be blurred and it is a difficult one. Perhaps my most frustrating "tourist trap" experience came when I was in high school on a summer family vacation with my family. We went to New Mexico and visited the Taos Pueblo, which is a very famous image from the Southwestern US. A historical and fascinating structure, the Pueblo itself was built centuries ago to house the tribe, not to attract tourists. So in a sense it should fall under the second category. But yet, when we walked around, all we could see were the many (many many) shops that the residents had set up to sell stuff to tourists. It was handmade, sure, but it was overpriced and you felt more like these people were only there because they knew we would be there. So I think this may be the paradigmatic combination of the two. But I think these types of places are few and far between.

Anyway the point really is, I try to avoid the first type of tourist trap but not the second. There's a long history of gold shops on the Ponte Vecchio - and the things in them are still of the highest quality 18k Italian gold, made in Florence or Italy, etc. OK, maybe there are cheaper places to get them. But it's still the PONTE VECCHIO! It's still the Tower of Pisa - built to be a church's bell tower, not an attraction.

For the real tourist traps, those things that would never even exist but for tourists supporting them, I have a plea to my fellow travelers and tourists. STOP SUPPORTING THEM. If tourists refused to buy fake imported masks in Venice, they wouldn't exist. If tourists refused to give in to the cheese and crappy souvenirs and stayed away from the places and people who want to take advantage of us, those places would go out of business. Some things can't help being attractive to tourists. We are fascinated by a tower that's angled or by Times Square's hustle and bustle. And I personally have no problem giving my money to these "tourist traps" - at least these things have values and existence and my money is not going to support some money-making enterprise but to restore and maintain and improve the sights that we all love. In the end, whether you see the difference between these types of tourist traps or whether you care, that's up to you and me and everyone else individually. I suppose the ultimate question is: when you support a particular shop or business or restaurant or whatever, is it helping the place you love or hurting it? For me, that's the only thing I really need to consider.

Happy traveling!