Overcoming Overtourism: Cameron Hewitt Blog from Last Year

We love Collioure. It has it all including a castle, art history, charm. I fear the cruise ships will find it!
We are considering a visit to Salamanca. It seems appealing and, hopefully, not over run with tourists.

Collioure felt pretty much "discovered" when I went there 7 or 8 years ago. Granted, it was in the middle of summer, but while pretty, it felt touristy in a way that doesn't make me in a rush to head back.
As for Portugal, it is a very trendy destination right now. I went to Lisbon in August (yes, peak time) and my parents went too in late September. Our previous visit had been in 2005, and we were shocked to see how mobbed with tourists the city was. I cannot speak about the rest of Portugal of course!

A few years ago, we had a home exchange in Aachen, Germany. The town itself is easy to navigate, convenient to highways, bustling city center. It’s just down the road from Belgium (we did our grocery shopping there), Maastricht, the Rhine wine region. We didn’t see many tourists there either. We found our way to several scenic villages which probably haven’t seen many Americans since WWII. We also liked Gorchem, Netherlands. A town southeast of Rotterdam but convenient to much of Netherlands due to its close proximity to highways leading north and south into Belgium. Again, not a tourist hit spot but a town where mingling with the townspeople is easy.

Scotland is on my radar but I had sort of written off Isle of Skye as itself being overtouristed with underbuilt tourism infrastructure (accommodations).

I'd be interested to see how much Skye has changed since we were there in 2002. We went north and were able to find nice accommodations and stunning, uncrowded scenery. We traveled early Spring. We lucked up to go the week after Easter. i found out later that Easter week was an extremely popular time for tourists and most places open up to take advantage, even though it is followed by a lull before the high season starts to gear up. Even back then the bridge to Skye was controversial. It made Skye much more accessible and many of the inhabitants of the island weren't thrilled with the influx of tourists.

Portugal is on our radar, mainly because my third great grandfather was Portuguese. He was kidnapped as a teenager and sold into involuntary servitude. I also want to go to Salzburg, since I am also descended from some of the original settlers of the colony of Georgia.

I get a little nervous about posts and blogs recommending new, less touristy areas. Several years ago there was a sleepy little area on the western coast of Italy that was off the beaten track. A certain guidebook author and TV travel program helped bring it to the world's attention and it hasn't been the same since.

Time of year certainly makes a difference. Collioure was delightful (uncrowded, did not feel like a 'touristy' place) but I was there in March - sunny and unseasonably freezing cold.

Salamanca even in mid summer was not crowded, had a really nice 'vibe' but then it's got that 'right' size. Big enough to absorb quite a lot of visitors but not one of the 'must see' cities. The real 'biggies' (Barcelona, Paris, etc.) get crowded in the areas with the famous sites because everyone goes there so even though they are large they feel more crowded. If you are going to Spain (for the first time, I think a lot of people only go to many countries once) you are going to Barcelona or Madrid, not Salamanca. Ask a lot of Americans (and probably others) and they have not even heard of it. Same I think for Nuremburg.

I think heading the article "10 European Discoveries for 2019" was rather misleading (and would have been in 2018 when the article was first published). They might be discoveries for those who only rely on old RS travel resources, but they're well-known by tourists generally. Some of them very much so - if you go to Lisbon expecting to be finding somewhere undiscovered then you're going to be sorely disappointed. Lisbon is brilliant, of course, but hardly off the tourist track. Gdansk is also fantastic, but that at least two of the low cost European airlines have many flights to its local airport is an indication that its not a new discovery. The best thing to say about Gdansk is that it's not yet swamped, out of season, so go now if you can avoid peak tourism. But don't expect a tourist-free paradise - the hoho bus operators are there already!

If an European says they're going to somewhere undiscovered in the USA, you can be sure they mean "my neighbours haven't been there". You can also bet the Americans themselves have discovered it before now. The same happens in reverse.

Gdansk was indeed swamped in mid-July 2018. Nothing remotely undiscovered about it at that time of year. I was surprised at the level of tourist traffic; I assume most visitors were European, and possibly a lot arrived on Scandinavian ferries. But Gdansk is beautiful and has two really excellent historical museums. I definitely recommend the city highly, but those thinking they'll be there ahead of the mobs will be disappointed if they go during high season. And I wouldn't go very early or late in the year, myself, because of weather issues.

L'viv I'd put in the same category as Gdansk: You're years too late to catch it in Undiscovered mode, but you should certainly go. There's room for both of those cities to get worse. Kyiv's a better choice if you want to feel like an explorer.

Skye, on the other hand, didn't feel overrun during July this year. You need to book lodgings very early if you won't have a car and are limited to places with bus service, and a prudent person makes a dinner reservation for every night if he isn't going to eat right at opening time (usually 5 PM, I think). On Sundays, when a lot of places are closed, even showing up at 5 PM is no guarantee of being seated. Beyond sourcing lodging and restaurant meals, my issues were getting around without a car and the wet weather, not crowds. There were other tourists about, but not as many as I had expected.

Although I read a library copy of the first edition of Europe Through the Back Door shortly after publication and have used Rick's guide books ever since, I'm pretty sure I first learned about the Cinque Terre from an article in the Travel section of the New York Times. When Rick first highlighted it, it was a very good tip. Incidentally, the NYT also informed me about some other interesting places that saw relatively few visitors at the time, including Quedlinburg (now popular with Europeans), Goerlitz, and Nafplion. Alas, I still haven't made it to Nafplion.

Wouldn’t it be something if people start avoiding the places that may currently be overtouristed, and they Become virtually empty? Then they’d start getting rediscovered, while the current “undiscovered” places become overtouristed?

Or people start just staying home, for any number of reasons, which would be a shame, for several other reasons? Probably won’t happen, at least not soon.

Maybe seeing the Mona Lisa (and taking a selfie with it, which I didn’t know, until recently, was imperative for many - it never occurred to me in two visits, 32 years apart, to ever do that) will cease to be on peoples’ agendas, and there’ll be some glorious archaeological discovery that will attract throngs to a place that’s seldom visited now.

If you like beaches, Salema, PT. I fell in love with it and preferred it over Lagos (LAH-goosh) and I am a city gal who stays out of the sun.

Yet, Rick still promotes these over-touristed towns instead of promoting a different town or city. Why?

If you're interested in a visit to the Netherlands, without the mass tourism in Amsterdam, I think I have an answer.

I had a 5 day work conference up in Friesland that turned out to be absolutely delightful. I stayed in the small city of Leeuwarden, & managed to carve out a few days to explore the surrounding area as well. I think mine was the only wheeled suitcase I saw all week. Leeuwarden itself was a typical dutch small city with a historic center, small canal system, even a tiny, block long red light district. It's sort of a mini Amsterdam, with no tourists & a very walkable scale. The folks I met seemed genuinely surprised that an American had found his way up to their charming province. The North Sea coast up there is beautiful & the off shore islands are fascinating. (I did manage to get one day out on Terschelling) If I ever get a chance to visit Holland again, I think I'll skip A-dam & head up to Friesland for more exploring up there.

If you go to Salamanca, you should include Zamora and Valladolid. I also stopped into Avila, Segovia and Toledo (but everyone visits those). There are also some great Spanish castles in the area: Pinafiel, La Mota and Coca. To me that area is the real heart of old Spain.

For an amazing and undertouristed visit, go during Semana Santa. Valladolid is one of the famous places in Spain but tourists seem to only know Seville. The processions are breathtaking and the crowds are virtually all locals. Zaragosa also has well known processions, virtually all locals, but I think Valladolid is the nicer town to visit.

Avoid Semana Santa in Barcelona. Barcelona is the least religious city in the least religious part of Spain. Barcelona is a great city but you'd be wasting any Semana Santa day there (from experience).

April in Spain is the perfect time to visit. Seville has their April Fair (usually in late April) and Valencia has their fire festival (usually late March). When I visited April Fair, there didn't seem to be many tourists in the crowd.

I visited Gdansk in July 2010. It was crowded but not packed (maybe because there was light rain?). Gdansk has a lot of impressive architecture on their royal mile. We also hired a taxi to take us to Malbork castle (about a 30-45 minute ride).

The key to avoiding over-tourism is to avoid the tourist magnates. Venice, Rome, Pisa in Italy, Berlin and Munich in Germany, Paris and Normandy in France.

We went to Quimper in France in 2017. It was very nice. Beautiful Atlantic coast, small towns which are working towns with few tourists, some WWII fortifications, cows and cows, culture of Bretagne. In Germany, we often go to Cottbus, as we have friends there. It is in the East. Next trip, we will go to Poland, and base ourselves in Cottbus likely. We haven't been to Italy. In Croatia, we like to visit Slavonia and Zagreb, which are not the tourist center of Croatia.

Small towns have charm, and are often inexpensive.

My husband and I typically travel in the off-season (late autumn/early spring) not just because it is much less expensive than in the summer or shoulder seasons but also because we want to avoid the hordes of people traveling to European countries from North America. This is how my parents taught us how to travel.

Depending upon our budget and airfare sales emailed to us, we travel when we have the vacation time accrued. We ignore the elitism of travel writers or anybody for that matter preaching about where they think others should travel. If the time is right, if the costs are affordable for our budget, if there are no mobs of tourists, and most importantly if we have a great interest to visit, we will go and enjoy experiential travel.

Travel is so important to one’s lifetime education and naysayers are ignored by my husband and me.

I like the suggestions from the blog linked in the OP. I’ve been to a few of them & agree.

Emma, NYC has a quiet time and that is only two months of the year — January & February.

Apparently, tourists think it’s too cold to be here. It’s actually one of the best times to come to New York because there are no lines at museums, restaurants, theater, or any tourist attraction. One does risk a snowstorm but coming to New York in the summer, one risks thunderstorms that cancel flights left and right. Thunderstorms are actually much more prevalent in the summer than snowstorms are in January and February.

We are not afraid to visit places that are popular, since those are usually the must see places. However, after living overseas and traveling a lot since retirement in 2010, we have visited 78 countries. We have been back to some places, but also have visited new places, that aren't as crowded.

Some of the places we have visited in the past few years are awesome:
1) Norway (by cruise) up to the North Cape
2) Peru, Cusco, Sacred Valley and Machu Picchu. Suggest doing these high altitude places before you turn 70. We managed it fine, but after four days were exhausted.
3) Australia, New Zealand and TransPacific cruise from Sydney to Seattle
4) New England and Canada (cruise from Boston to Quebec City)
5) Portugal, including a 7 night Douro River cruise. AWESOME
6) Alaska cruise and land tour of Denali
7) 4 week drive tour of Wales and England, especially visiting place where our ancestors came from.
8) Cruise around Cape Horn with pre and post cruise visits in Buenos Aires and Santiago.
9) Japan, especially Kyoto, the cruise ending in Hong Kong.

Next, we have a safari in Kenya and Tanzania. Life is good.

I find it a bit humorous. Often, those that tell you to avoid Rome, Paris and London are the ones that have already been to Rome, Paris in London. Why? Because Paris, London, Rome, etc represent the great Icons of Western civilization. Going to Lviv doesn’t supplant that. Of course if you have no interest in the history of Western culture then it is probably best to avoid such places and make room for those who get a thrill out of standing before Napoleon’s crypt.

Still, there is a lot of fresh uncluttered beauty in Paris. You just have to avoid what most people go to Paris to see. Imagine coming back and your neighbor asking, “did you see the Eiffel Tower” and you responding, no. “How about the left bank”, no; “the Louvre?”, no again. “What the F did you see?” To which you proudly respond, “a bunch of back streets”.

If you travel to experience difference, then the old cultural icons are probably not so good for you. They have become so tourist oriented that it can be hard to find someone that speaks the native language. Okay, that’s an exaggeration. Now Lviv becomes relevant. Although it is a bit of a tourist trap now too. I know better places not far from Lviv.

Then there is a tourist trap, that by its very nature is a great experience. That would be any tourist trap that doesn’t cater specifically to Western tourism. For that a good example is Odesa. Fantastic experience being a minority traveler in a tourist environment. I am hoping Uzbekistan is the same. Oddly enough Sarajevo had some of that feel as it caters to Muslim tourists (my hotel room came with a prayer rug).

But while I always say go East, that is changing too. Eastern Europe has some amazing nature if you are into that. But some of it like Plitvice Lakes in Croatia is plain stupid over touristed….. There are places in BiH that while maybe not as beautiful, are still more beautiful because you can still stand alone and take it all in.

So you have to do a bit of hunting to avoid the crowds, but you have to ask yourself, is the crowd worth the putting up with for the payoff on what you will see or experience? Very often, yes. Overtourism is a term coined by people who have already been there or have no interest in mainstream cultural interests. There is no wrong place to go; but there are a lot more interesting places out there than most realize.

Well James, we went to Paris and did not go up on the Eiffel Tower, nor did we go to the Louvre. It doesn't mean our visit to Paris was worthless as though those were the only 2 things worth seeing there. What an odd thing to say. Everyone has different interests and it doesn't have to be the top sites. Maybe we visited the cemetery cause that interests us or climbed to the top of Sacre Coeur for a fabulous view. We experienced a fantastic Bastille Day and strolled through markets, parks, and nice little side streets, and admired the Arc de Triumph from the outside. Who cares? Who goes on vacation to impress their friends with what they saw? If they are, it is no wonder they aren't enjoying themselves. We also went to Milan and didn't see the Last Supper and guess what? It truly makes no difference. I have been to Munich but have zero desire to be there during Oktoberfest. I have lived in Germany since '86 and still have no desire to see Neuschwanstein, but have seen tons of other castles. Went to Edinburgh and didn't go in the castle, but went in the Underground Vaults instead. Enjoyed Edinburgh immensely.

So you saw the Eiffel Tower, and the Louvre and the Sacre Coeur, Bastille Day and the Arc de Triumph; I would say you did a pretty traditional trip to Paris. And my point was, that's fine as is every other trip that someone might want to imagine.

But next time go in the Louvre, it is worth it no matter what your interests are; and if you thought the views from Sacre Coeur were good, the views from the Eiffel Tower are stunning too. Shame you missed them. But I skipped both the first few times too. Just so much to see I wanted to keep walking. For the tower, get there about 30 min before it opens, mid-week, and its generally not too crowded.

The last time I was in New York was in January a few years ago. There
was a big freeze but we couldn’t work out what the farenheit
temperatures meant so we just carried on. Staten Island ferry and open
top bus at 5 Fahrenheit (-15 Celsius)Great fun but a bit stupid! Boy
were we cold!

I love that you chose to be outside on either the bus, ferry or both! Now THAT is experiential travel! :-) Sometimes we get those cold spells. I prefer the cold over those hot summer days over 32ºC! I hate the heat. LOL

James, you completely missed my point! Not everyone has to see the popular highlights, nor do they want to. They are only a must for some people. One can say they have seen Paris without doing the tourist sites. One can enjoy Rome without going in the Vatican. Your post said the opposite. There is no urge for me to go back to Paris. Hard to believe, but I can live my life without yearning to go to the top of the Eifel Tower.

Ms. Jo. Of 18 million international tourists in Paris, only about 5 million went up the tower. So that makes you pretty much a mainstream tourist in Paris. I was too. Nothing wrong with that..... I love Paris. But given a choice between a good fishing trip in BiH or Montenegro or a return to Paris .... I will go fishing. But for me at least, London, Paris, Rome we all stepping stones that helped me get ready for the more obscure places. Which is why if someone were ask, where do i go on my first trip to Europe; i always say London, Paris then Rome. If you have a bit more time, then throw in something way outside of your comfort zone. Romania would be good, or Ukraine.... But thats just me and like I said in the first post, there is no wrong trip. I guess I should have added, just wrong critics.

"Being "clever" and travelling off season or to less popular/less known places just extends the inconvenience." - That's me then, I've never been called clever before. My gran said a good education was wasted on me - ha, what did she know?

Go where YOU want to go.

See what YOU want to see..

Do what YOU want to do.

Who cares what others think. Who cares what a travel writer says. And to be honest, almost anyplace that is of interest to you will probably be on interest to others.

I go where I want to go. I do what I want to do. If a place I want to visit is known for crowding, I might try to find when it might be less crowded. If not, I bite the bullet and go.

But I don't go to places other people suggest that I have no interest in just because I'm trying to impress someone else or don't want to disappoint them. As an example, I was just in Iceland for the third time. To this day I have never been to the Blue Lagoon. I have no plans to go there. It just doesn't interest me. Yet others find it the highlight of their trip.

I've also noticed that some people get very angry when they suggest you do something or go somewhere and you say it doesn't interest you. I had a conversation with a friend who loves cruises. I have no interest is spending my time on a boat with 3000 other people. When I told him cruises werent for me, he got very angry and demanded to know what was wrong with cruises. I never said anything was wrong with cruises, they just aren't for me. (And before anyone says how do I know I won't like it unless I try it.....I have done an overnight ferry with that many people and that one night was enough.)