[mmsimanga]

Not to sound snotty but for some reason the more popular a place is the less inclined I am to visit it. But for a lot of people having your picture taken in front of well known places like the Eiffel tower is none negotiable. I love the lesser known places. They tend to be less expensive, less rushed and also have their own history.

I am not in favour of making popular spots like the Louvre so expensive so that only rich people can visit. As much as I hate the thought of it the only suggestion I can think of is to have some sort of booking system that limits the numbers yearly. With spots for schools, locals and so on...

[dagw]

the more popular a place is the less inclined I am to visit it

While I don't disagree with you per se, it is also worth remembering that most super popular places are super popular for a reason, and there often is a good reason to see it for yourself. I was indifferent towards Eiffel Tower for example, until I actually was in Paris and climbed up it and got to really see and experience the scale and design and engineering that went into building it up close. Now I get why the Eiffel Tower is considered impressive.

Same with Venice. You can read about it and look at pictures, but until I walked up and down all the streets and alleyways, and went into the old buildings, I never really got what a truly interesting and unique piece of urban planning Venice really is, and what efforts must have gone into building and maintaining it. Now when I read about the history of Venice it comes alive in a much different way than before I visited.

Same story with Sagrada Familia, Notre Dame, St Peter’s Basilica, most of the major art museums etc. etc.

So as much as dislike 'tourist traps' I'm at the same time super glad that I've gotten a chance to visit most of the big ones, and don't regret the time I had to spend to do so.

[epolanski]

> Not to sound snotty but for some reason the more popular a place is the less inclined I am to visit it.

You're not snotty, it's hard to enjoy very crowded places. Florence is probably the place I've enjoyed visiting less on this planet for this reason. It's too small for the number of people.

Also, you really don't get to see any real city, it's a theme park, same for Venice. Locals are hard to come by/see.

I feel lucky as an Italian/European to be able to visit the less known places with ease, having the time and being in proximity is great.

But often I read tourists on reddit asking for those tours of Rome/Florence/Venice over 7/8 days and I struggle to imagine how they can really enjoy such a tour de force in very overcrowded places..

[benchly]

I'm of a like mind when it comes to travel; I specifically target the lesser-known spaces so I do not have to fight the types of crowds a hotspot like The Louvre would attract. The previous commenter was probably worried about sounding snotty because doing this gives the impression that we think the hotspots are sort of dumbed down and over-hyped in order to have mass appeal, especially to American tourists, which is admittedly true at least part of the time. Even with all the amazing works in the Louvre, the crowd would still prevent me from enjoying it, milling about like guided cattle the way people do when cruise ships make port.

Other similar travelers we have talked to have given me the (possibly false) impression that there is also an underlying current of preservation in how we travel. Let the masses go to the Louvre or see what Venice wants them to see, etc...it keeps the other areas pure in a way that augments the experience for the savvy traveler that is trying to gain a better understanding of the place itself as opposed to just sightseeing. Tourism tends to cheapen the experience overall, leaving one with a few photographs of expensive memories and a t-shirt. I just don't find that appealing.

Perhaps now I sound snotty, but that is how I feel.

[BrandoElFollito]

Well, the Louvre is truly unique so it is definitely worth the trip, plus possibly Orsay and 2-3 lesser museums.