Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Boston Tourism Rating Falls

Boston, although officially still recognized as a 6 point (of 12) World City by GaWC , but as a destination we are losing ground to other destinations in North America. Once rated up there with New York and San Francisco as prime vacation destinations, Condé Nast traveler and Travel+ Leisure have both recently relegated Boston to the obscurity of a minor city.

Let’s be fair to admit that Boston’s cultural attractions do not bow to any in America. With world class museums, heritage sights, and universities, Boston will always remain the historical destination. With a Market town patchwork of streets and alleys, Boston is one of the few American cities that is authentically pedestrian. Restaurants abound in all downtown neighborhoods and with the ocean on its doorfront, seafood reigns. Sports in Boston also reign. Fenway Park is the oldest Major league stadium in the nation and is itself a museum. With gorgeous parks, an urban river and the harbor, the city is no doubt a beautiful place.

But the ratings have dropped? That’s no surprise. What would Americans these days see in Boston? Travel and Leisure kowtows to luxurious details, mostly in hotel interiors and fashionable dining experiences, but does not pay any homage to the culturally significant. In their eyes, the hotel equals the experience. For any sensible tourist or sightseer, the only worthwhile time in a hotel is for sleeping. True, in a world always spinning, many tourists seek rest and relaxation above experience, and Boston is not for them. Boston must be met with a pair of walking shoes, a healthy appetite for hearty seafood and thirst for Sam Adams or Harpoon.

Boston is not a fashionable place, and most of its worthwhile bars are miles away from downtown. Boston is not a place where high-brand nightlife is measured nor should it. It is safe to say that Boston’s people are not the most attractive. Boston is not Vegas and should never pretend to be, nor try to compete. Just the same, Vegas is not Boston. Measuring a city’s cultural value has been degraded in recent years with a culture obsessed with the trivial and indulgent on throw-away experiences. A city with a diverse historical context, steeped in traditions (gradually being washed into the American mainstream), and its automobile-unfriendly nature makes Boston not immediately accessible for most people. It’s a more sumptuous locale, comparing organic food to McDonalds. People looking for the instant gratification of tasty condiments should seek alternate destinations.

Another complaint is from expensive hotel costs and unfriendliness. With a limited area of downtown, it is no doubt Boston’s downtown hotels; in Copley Square, Financial District, or in Cambridgeside, are expensive. But you will find this in every worthwhile city. Take a look at an average Manhattan hotel. New York is not only known for being expensive, but its people are some of the most insulting rude and obnoxious outside of Paris. In my experience, however, the people in Boston who are most revolting to outsiders are usually outsiders themselves, living and working in Boston for the experience. Once they ingratiate themselves with the subway and their immediate neighborhood, they wear these on their sleeves and are automatically angered when they are inconvenienced by tourists’ directions or slowing down to admire the buildings they are living in. These people are snobbish to locals and worse to tourists, and are mostly responsible for local neighborhoods losing their cultural identities. These people must be ignored. (But unfortunately it is the transplants that continually bring money into Boston and keep the city’s economy healthy.)

The numbers of tourists that continually flock to Boston each spring, summer and fall are a testament that Boston still can hang with other hyped tourist traps. Boston sure has some of the worst tourist traps in the country; the Fanueil Hall marketplace is perhaps the worst of all, but it remains one of few. Sure Boston’s nightclub scene suffers, but that will never (hopefully) be the appeal of the nighttime entertainment in Boston where our drinks are served in pubs. I still can’t believe that attractiveness of the cities inhabitants is even rated. Point ceded. Boston is not LA, Vegas or Miami. There are more hot chicks in those cities. Travel + Leisure once again missed the boat. When is that magazine going to float?

http://www.boston.com/travel/boston/articles/2007/10/22/losing_stature/

7 comments:

jchev said...

of the top 10 cities which one is Boston better than:
1 New York 85.36
2 San Francisco 84.60
3 Chicago 83.15
4 Santa Fe 83.05
5 Quebec City 82.81
6 Charleston, South Carolina 82.36
7 Vancouver 81.00
8 Montreal 79.98
9 Victoria, British Columbia 79.61
10 Seattle 79.18
I think what hurts Boston is 24th for weather and friendly (No. 21...I don't really think its an America trend because all of the cities listed have the qualities you describe in your post.

Jaquins Lyre said...

Jchev
I think the point of my article is that Travel + Leisure is not a magazine for the common traveler and in no way should determine how cities are rated. Even if it is a poll (from its readers of course).

And not to trash the other cities on the list but another of the points of the article was to highlight the fact that Boston has some of the more 'classical' cultural attractions in North America and deserves to be next to New York, San Fran and Chicago. Are you actually going to tell me that Victoria, Vancouver, Seattle or Santa Fe stack up favorably when comparing them to what Boston has to offer to the tourist? I am finding it hard to take your obvious and exceedingly familiar Boston bashing seriously (but it is still very welcome).

BTW, Is that a tourism ratings list or a liveable city list? Because it is astounding that Las Vegas, Orlando, Miami and DC are not on a tourist list of North American cities.

jchev said...

this is the tourism list in the article cited by boston.com...I think you are really avoiding the fact that Boston is not a friendly city for travelers. That makes a huge difference for families. How can it be Boston bashing when it is a fact that less people are traveling to the city? My point is your arguments for Boston and against Miami and Las Vegas do not fit for the cities listed in the pole. All of the cities listed are walking cities and with the exception of NY not known for their night life. I don’t think you can blame a culture change for the decline of tourism. At some point Boston must be held accountable for the fact that tourism has continued to decline over the past eight years. The tourist sites are still great and in many ways Boston is more accessible than ever. As for DC Vegas and Orlando they all have obvious flaws that hurt their ratings. None more so than DC which has raised hotel prices so high that families have a difficult time affording the city. In addition all of the affordable restaurants are far away from the tourist attractions. The city also has an inadequate metro system that only services 2/3 of the city. In my opinion it is the aggressive nature of Bostonians that make Boston a less attractive city visit.

Jaquins Lyre said...

Chev,

I don't particularly disagree with any point because 'friendliness' is a very ambiguous rating. I think the rough Boston accent itself compares unfavorably to a sweet country accent folks would have in Santa Fe or Charleston. While the south always gets high marks for friendliness, it is a fake kind of friendly that I find even more obnoxious. You know under their breath and behind your back they are whispering "damn yankee".

Also, I would advise you to look at the other polls for 2007 listed on the website.

http://www.travelandleisure.com/worldsbest/2007/results.cfm?cat=citiesusca

As you can see for, let's say, the European survey (http://www.travelandleisure.com/worldsbest/2007/results.cfm?cat=citieseurope),
Paris is 6 and London is not even on the list! Travel + Leisure is a very chic travel magazine, promoting development and especially niche travel. Sure the cities that are all on the N.American list are splendid, but you have to understand the context in which they are picked. It means nothing. It's just what's hot in travel. After seeing the complete lists and comparing them with the other continents surveyed, I probably would not have wrote this entry; it just wouldn't have made me upset enough to defend Boston.

jchev said...

thats a good point about Paris...nice research...I do think that charelston is a nice city. I think we beat this horse to death. Good discussion though

JazzyJtotheILL said...

Having lived all over MA as well as having friends from Boston and transplanted to Boston, I couldn't agree more that the unfriendliness of Boston is derived right from the people who were not been born and raised in this state.

The majority of these people come here for the school reputations, the work and just the social aspect of Boston. They don't conform to the exsisting cultures of Boston instead they feel entitled to think they are BETTER than the existing cultures of Boston.

The tourists come along and meet these people and are so turned off by the representation of Boston.

Agreed about the fakeness of the south. It is similar out west. What people tend to forget and not appreciate is the genuineness and the out right realness of character that true Boston folk bring to this state.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant web site, I hadn't noticed blogriotus.blogspot.com before during my searches!
Continue the superb work!