Super touristy cities that are still worth it, and ones that are overrated?
 

My go to for a classic over-saturated tourist city that I still think is one of the coolest places in the world is Venice. Yes, the main areas are way too crowded for most of the spring/summer, you can get caught in tourist trap restaurants or attractions, and it can feel like Disney World at some times. Still, I think it's a place that everyone should experience at least once. The best part about Venice is the complete lack of any sort of logical navigability. My favourite memories are just having a general idea of what direction you need to head, and winding left and right down tiny side streets away from the tourist hordes. Finding a tiny hole-in-the-wall restaurant with some amazing Venetian seafood pasta dishes.

On the other hand, I thought Dubrovnik was a cool place to check out for a couple days when I went ~10 years ago. I went back two years ago and it was a nightmare and felt twice as crowded. Cool to see for sure, but not somewhere I have a huge desire to rush back to now. I guess for someone who hadn't been, I'd still say it's worth it to check it once or twice.

Not as high a proportion of tourists as the previous two obviously, but I think Athens is my least favourite major Mediterranean city I've been to. It feels crazy sprawly for a metro of ~3 million, and I didn't find the inner city residential areas nearly as interesting to walk through as its Italian or Spanish counterparts. It was hotter than hell when I was there as well.

I was going to say Venice as well. It's a bit miserable during the day, but at night when the cruise ship and daytripper hordes disappear it becomes much more relaxed and enjoyable, with a bit more of a typical Italian city ambiance. Either way, it's completely unique as an urban experience and a quite remarkable place. Still worth seeing if for no other reason - even if you have to put up with all of the other people doing the same.

I wouldn't say that it ever feels like Disney World though. Yeah, it's totally overcrowded, and yeah there are a lot of crappy tourist trap restaurants and trinket shops, but it's still got that very real patina that only hundreds of years of being a lived in place can create. It doesn't feel artificial - just annoyingly popular.

I haven't been to Venice yet, and the main reason that I haven't is because I don't like tourist traps. But I am motivated to go see it since it might be underwater soon.

I agree about Dubrovnik. I went three years ago and it was interesting to see, but I was expecting it to be more of a functional city. It's an extremely beautiful region, and the Old Town is phenomenal, but the only reason I would ever go back is as a stop during Yacht Week. I would go back to the region to visit other places, though. Montenegro is high on my to do list.

Athens is okay for a city, but it's not nearly as interesting as many other European capitals. IMO, the main reason to fly across the globe to Greece is to visit the islands.

Paris is a super touristy city that's worth it. Barcelona as well, which I think is the most interesting city in Spain.

In the U.S.:

I find New Orleans to be worth it despite all the tourism.

I do not enjoy DC as a tourist, though I appreciate the row home neighborhoods and enjoyed it okay as a place to live.

Internationally:

I agree Paris is worth it. I did not like Salzburg - it's brand of tourism is a little too heavy on the chocolate shop/classical music theme. Beautiful area though.

I never understand those who don't like Athens. I've heard many others describe it as sprawly, but it's the second-most dense city in Europe, and one of the ten most dense major cities in the world! I think the topography just means you can see it all laid out at once, so it appears to stretch on forever. At any rate, Athens isn't particularly touristy, so doesn't deserve mention here.

Super touristy, but still worth it
New York
Miami
Charleston
Los Angeles
Rio de Janeiro
San Francisco
Amsterdam
New Orleans
Niagara Falls
Barcelona
Montreal

Overrated
Nashville
Las Vegas
Austin
Myrtle Beach
Phoenix

Another tourist magnet that is still absolutely worth it: Rome. The Eternal City was my favorite city in Europe due to the kaleidoscope of layered history, amazing food, gorgeous Baroque, lived-in feel, and compact walkability.

Forgot about Salzburg. That's probably my least favourite European city that I've been to. Dull and overrun with tour bus tourists. It's obviously pretty of course, but even then it doesn't really stand out in this department compared to some of the more interesting cities in the region. Innsbruck is way better.

I couldn't have said it better.

Even if Venice isn't my favourite city, my first night of walking around Venice followed by a midnight vaporetto ride past lit up landmarks still is one of the top 3 urban experiences of my life. It's up there with the first time I saw the Midtown Manhattan skyline when I was 21 and took the elevated 7 train in from LGA with Nas' "It ain't hard to tell" on my discman (which I had queued up because I was passing by Queensbridge Houses), and my first ride on the Star Ferry from the Kowloon to the Hong Kong side, at nighttime with all the Christmas decorations ablaze.

Also agree re: Salzburg (which was on the same trip as Venice). It's like 4 streets of decent baroque architecture completely overrun by tourists and a modern, mid-size city that's very clearly provincial in outlook.

While many of the great tourism cities are completely overrun, I cannot say that most of them are overrated. Venice is unbelievable, yet overrun. Paris is incredible, yet overrun. New York City is overrun in spots (esp. Times Square), but it is still magical.
Strangely, Tokyo is fantastic yet not overrun? Maybe because I expect it to be (want it to be) crowded as fuck?

The second tier European cities offer the best experiences because they are quaint, full of history, and overlooked by the tourist mobs (esp. the awful coach bus tour types).

Disney World just sucks. You couldn't pay me to go there.

Rome is so beautiful and magical. I went on winter, so tourists were not a big problem.

I've never been there, but I have the impression I won't like Barcelona. For some reason I feel it's overhyped and the crowds of young tourists will make the experience even worse.


Indeed. I spent my last vacations touring Germany on the winter. Hamburg, for instance, is a great city. In Italy, cities like Turin, Genoa, Napoli and even Milan would be alternatives for people trapped on the Rome-Florence-Venice circuit.

I think I should have made the question below a threshold of a certain size. I wasn't really fair to Athens, and it's a massive city where you can avoid tourists just like Paris, London, Barcelona, etc.

What's probably a better question is which of those cities which are too small and too touristy to get the "live like a local" experience, but are still worth going to because they offer something unique. Salzburg seems like a good example of one where you both can't avoid the tourist scourge, and there might not be enough meat to make withstanding the horde worth it.

I suppose I don't really understand the premise of the initial question. It all depends on what you, as a tourist, are visiting a city for, doesn't it? For example, someone listed Nashville and Austin as being "overrated," but if you're a tourist visiting those cities for good food and live music then they're probably exactly where you should be. Same for Vegas. As a city in general, sure, you could definitely make the argument that it's overrated. But if you are a tourist looking to gamble and party, is there any better place?

Barcelona has appeared in 3 posts already. it's a top touristy city that is still worth it, however my personal preference would lean to Sevilla and Toledo.

It's hard to overrun 35 million residents. :P

Kyoto on the other hand is pretty overrun (or at least it was when I was there in cherry blossom season). But still very much worth it.

I think this speaks to the advantage of larger cities though - no matter how popular with tourists they may be, they're still going to be large, dynamic cities in their own right with millions of inhabitants living their non-tourist lives in interesting, non-touristy neighbourhoods. Smaller cities on the other hand always run the risk of tilting a little too heavily towards tourism once they reach the point where they've been "discovered" by a critical mass of tourists.

Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded. - Yogi Berra

A smaller city that's become overrun by tourists is Bruges. Gorgeous city but it felt like a museum with everyone in sight a gawking tourist. It feels fossilized and sterile.

In contrast, I was in Ghent the next day and that city felt alive, with locals hurrying to and fro, no tour groups in sight despite the medieval churches and castle.

Venice is an easy one -absolutely flooded with tourists in the main square, but turn into any alleyway and you suddenly have it to yourself

Yep, little known fact Kyoto is actually one of the most heavily touristed spots in the world, about 18 million overnight and another 40 million daytrip. The Bamboo Forest alone gets nearly 32 million visitors a year.

For Canada --

Touristy and still worth it: Quebec City, Banff, Victoria
Touristy and not worth it: Niagara Falls, Charlottetown

I beg to differ. Though for Niagara Falls it will be under duress.