[alelefant]

You make a great point, yet I'm still able to identify with what the author was saying.

I oddly think about this a lot without really recognizing it. It may sound silly, but to me what makes the difference is the event itself. Being a tourist at a museum, natural landmark and so can feel so much different than being a tourist at a local watering hole. Taking a natural landmark as an example, I view it as if the locals can't claim it as their own and it's meant to be shared and interpreted by the world. Museums are practically enablers for tourism so locals can't be upset about that.

But, when it comes to a local food or drink joint, tucked away in a neighborhood of sub-cultures, I can't help but feel as if I'm intruding. To focus on the experience at a place known as being "best authentic food X in city Y" or "great neighborhood bar, one of the best in city Y" is to focus on the brick and mortar, the customers, the employees. Given just the right media attention or online review a place can become a tourist petri dish and the atmosphere can be entirely thrown off. Although, there sits the problem as without at least some attention I wouldn't have known about it.

That probably comes across as selfish, but it's not about me. There's many cases where a place becomes successful, patronage changes, ownership ends up changing hands a year or two later, and the place isn't what it used to be. I think there is something to be said for protecting local sub-cultures which is what I viewed the authors point to be.