This is actually a good way to figure out where to stay when visiting a city. Click tourist and avoid, click hipster and go there. Maybe go to the slightly less red areas for a more low key night. At least that's how you'd have fun if you were a 20-30 something in NYC.
So you're too good to be a tourist when you're a tourist? You sound like a hipster.
> click hipster and go there
Oh wait...
But in all seriousness, if I go to Rome, I want to see The Colosseum. If I go to Amsterdam, I want to see the Van Gogh Museum. Not being a tourist somewhere means having already seen what the tourists there are just seeing for the first time. Would you really prefer to go everywhere and never see anything at all? I'm not going to NYC just to see hipsters. I can see that at home.
Or you could see historic landmarks during the day and explore restaurants and bars local residents actually enjoy in the evenings. Restaurants that cater to tourists do so because you can profit off of their unfamiliarity with the area without having to provide a competitive dining experience in a municipality that broadly offers many excellent dining options. Wanting to find a plethora of interesting experiences when you travel and avoid being taken advantage of doesn't make you a hipster. And even if you are a hipster, who cares?
PS - this comment was written by someone who you probably would consider a hipster. Full disclosure just in case that colors your view
How does being a tourist based business mean you don't have to "provide a competitive dining experience". Sure local based businesses have to cater to local residents in order to win repeat business but that doesn't stop for tourism. People vacation in the same places each year, the businesses that do well are ones that not only cater to these visitors, but leave a lasting impression. Top business get reviewed by publications/websites and generally do better if they provide a competitive product.
Don't let the exceptions (aka tourists traps) cloud the rule which is fairly globally true no matter what sector you operate in.
Disclosure: I live and work (B2B) in a primarily tourist based economy. I talk every day with business owners who cater to tourists, locals and part-time residents. Tourist traps that do well despite shitty service are rare.
Fisherman's wharf is no colosseum. Golden gates worth a look though.
Overall sf city culture is the main tourist attraction of sf, so it makes sense to seek that out. I was pretty unimpressed by sf until seeing some of the massive displays of humanity its fond of putting on.
It has nothing to do with being a hipster, just different tastes.
If you come to Amsterdam and go to the Red Light, Museumplein, and Heineken brewery, that's one experience, but most Amsterdammers are never at those places. They're having a picnic in Westerpark, and beers on a terrace at Browerij 't IJ... Same with SF... I grew up there, but I've never been to Alcatraz, and I think I've been to Pier 39 once when I was 10.
Not that those places have no value, but some travelers are more interested in lifestyle than photo checklists. If you only have a few days in Paris, a day at the Louvre just getting in your way of seeing the real city, unless you are a big art history fan and love lines.
Wow, your post brought back such great memories of my first trip to Amsterdam. Visiting the Van Gogh museum, walking through the red light district, having savory pancakes at a famous place... while all fun, are not the experiences I remember. Taking the tour and tasting at Browerij 't IJ, grocery shopping for a BBQ with a local friend in Muiderpoort, eating Bitterballen, the random pub I hung out in waiting for my tour of the Utrecht Tower... Those are things that I will always remember.
There is nothing hipster about wanting to experience things locals regularly do. There is also nothing wrong with doing touristy things. I love the pictures I took at "The Bean" in Chicago, or climbing the steps of the Utrecht Dom Tower. If you /love/ classical art, then the Van Gough museum or Louvre are must sees, otherwise I agree that in 20 years it'll just be a checkbox "I've been to the Louvre!". For me, it comes down to that I remember more experiences with people than with things.
Having mistakenly bought a house in a hipster infested area of London a few years ago, I wouldn't recommend your approach unless your idea of a good night out is doing copious amounts of coke in front of children out with their parents, getting pissed and vomiting over the pavement (sidewalk), getting your iPhone nicked and then wading through broken glass until you get to your hotel.
If you go to the London hipster map. I live square dead in the middle of it (the Shoreditch triangle). Granted I've only lived here for 4 months but the only 2 bad things that I've seen were:
1) Someone puked in the alleyway that leads to my door. I walked around it.
2) One day when coming home at 11pm, there were people smoking weed in front of my door and one guy was pissing against the building close to my door. I went inside and everyone minded their own business.
Yeah those are not the nicest of experiences, however I'm rewarded every day by incredible access to art & culture (and amazing music gigs I can walk to by foot) and -- plainly -- I love people who step outside normalcy in terms of how they dress & express themselves. It's fun to see and makes me push my own boundaries :)
EDIT: Shoreditch is by now also an incredibly safe & affluent/expensive area. Never once have I felt threatened here, I feel safe carrying my phone on me at all times of day/night. This might be different in the cheaper-but-also-hipster areas of Hackney like Dalston.
This was shoreditch. Don't forget between city road and shoreditch is one of the worst estates in London. You must have been lucky but we had constant problems 2-3 times a week.
Sold up and bought a nice place in Strawberry Hill for the same money and am awarded with peace and quiet and literally zero crime and antisocial behaviour. Everyone is either financial and/or tech, legal or medical as well.
