Why I Am on the Side of Traditional Travel (and why maybe I shouldn't be)

What I don't want my vacation to look like.

In 2016, Airbnb began an advertising campaign that told its potential customers, "Don't just go there. Live there."  Commercials featured people in houses and apartments, playing in swimming pools, shopping in the neighborhoods, and cooking in the kitchens.  The goal is to live like a local and treat your vacation destination as if you were at home.  If you rent an Airbnb, you will have the same experience as someone who lives in your destination..

Compare that to my first trip to Chincoteague back in 1995.  I was 25 years old and I hadn't gone on a proper vacation in years.  I was probably fourteen the last time I stayed in full service accommodations. On that first trip to Chincoteague I was staying at a charming Bed and Breakfast in the middle of town. I remember coming back to my room after my first day at the beach.  I walked in and saw my bed was made, my room was tidy, the towels were hung in my bathroom, and my ceiling fan was switched on.  I felt so peaceful and pampered in that moment.  That afternoon I sat on the porch, drank lemonade, and ate cookies someone else had prepared.  The next morning, I was awakened with a full hot breakfast.  

I don't think the B&B would have been considered luxury accommodations by the experts, but it felt like luxury to me.  I didn't have to clean up after myself or cook anything or wash the dishes.  This was what vacation was all about.  I was getting away from it all, including the drudgery of daily life.

The argument for Airbnb and vacation rentals in general is it will give you a more "authentic" experience. If you stay in your own place in some obscure neighborhood, you will be living the way the locals live.  You won't be a tourist.  You will be avoiding all those unpleasant crowds and long lines in the tourist areas.

What's so great about living like a local?  Do you know what locals do?  They go to work all day.  They aren't going to the crowded tourist attractions because they have jobs to do. They drive through heavy traffic.  They clean their bathrooms.  Maybe they shop in the best food markets in town and make unbelievable meals, but they also have to wash and dry the dishes.  They speak the language fluently so they can understand and be understood when they need something.  The life of a local in a major tourist city is often glamourized.  

A local's life isn't all that different from my home life.  Why would I want to replicate that on my vacation?  I don't want to cook and clean and shop and make my bed.  Whether I am in an interesting new city or a beautiful countryside, I want to dedicate as much time to exploring it as possible.  I don't go away to live the same life I do at home.  My time away is limited and I want to do and see all I can.  I don't want to waste time doing ordinary things.  I want to hike mountains, swim in the ocean, visit museums, explore historic sites, ride horses, eat in good restaurants, and take photos.  If I do want to shop, then it's going to be for unique locally made souvenirs like clothing, jewelry and housewares, not groceries.

There is such a stigma attached to the world "tourist" in the twenty-first century. Travelers are judged by how authentic their experiences are, and I sometimes wonder if they miss out.  It's true if you rent a house in some quiet neighborhood and spend your vacation visiting local markets and eating in out-of-the-way cafes, you will avoid the crowds and the long lines at the tourist sites, but why are the tourist sites crowded in the first place?  

I know every popular vacation destination will have sites designed to  separate tourists from their money.  Whether the focus is on shopping or entertainment, there are places that only offer bad food, mass-produced souvenirs, and entertainment that is inauthentic to the region or is centered on activities visitors can do anywhere else. I agree places like this should be avoided. 

On the other hand, is it wrong to want to visit the “tourist” sites that have some cultural or historical significance?  Is the Louvre a tourist trap? How about Sagrada Familia?  The Coliseum?  The Eiffel Tower? The Leaning Tower of Pisa?  Times Square? Rockefeller Center? Alcatraz?  The Grand Canyon? Haleakala? The Tower of London?  The Anne Frank House? St. Mark's Square? The Great Wall of China?  It's true these places are crowded, but shouldn't we consider there is a reason why?  Should we avoid them because there are crowds and long lines? I know some places like Times Square are tacky, crowded, and expensive, but would you tell someone who has never visited New York City before not to at least see it?

There is a way to avoid some of the long lines.  I can hook up with a tour.  Yes, I said it, a tour! There are websites like Viator where I can book any number of "skip the line" tours and have a guide to boot.  This will certainly elicit a reaction from the travel snobs who would look down their noses at the hordes of people on a bus.  I suppose if I must take a tour, I need to take one with a local who gives tours as a side hustle privately in his car for more money that I can possible budget for.  Inauthentic as they are, bus tours you buy on Viator can have several advantages over trying to visit a site yourself.  They allow you to avoid lines, avoid transportation hassles, remove language barriers, and have someone knowledgeable to give more insight.

I have said this before and I will continue to say it.  There is nothing wrong with being a tourist.  There is nothing wrong with wanting to see the popular sites of a major city or view famous natural wonders.  We all have different preferences when we travel.  Some travelers want authenticity and believe the only way to achieve that is to visit a destination and do everything you do at home.  Some of us are looking to get out of our routines.  Sometimes even the tackiest tourist traps can be fun, particularly in resort areas where you have all-in-one activities and entertainment.  

My style of travel, whether international or domestic, cultural or natural, is I will book anything I can do on my own within reason.  I will use public transportation if it is easy to use and safe.  If I can have a free breakfast at my hotel, I will, but will try a local breakfast establishment if it looks good.  I will eat my lunch at a restaurant convenient to the area I am exploring. If I feel it will make my life easier, I will take guided tours.  At the end of the day I tend to want to stay close to my hotel because I'm tired.  I'll look for recommendations online and book or visit one of them if I can, but sometimes I eat what's convenient.  I avoid chains wherever I go.  Although I sometimes rent a car and drive to some areas, a tour that includes transportation comes in handy when my hotel isn’t close to sites I want to see.  (I only rent cars while traveling in the US as too much can go wrong driving abroad.)

What's more when I'm abroad I often eat at restaurants with English on the menu.  I have even eaten at restaurants where someone tried to entice me inside.  I don't believe all these restaurants are automatically bad.  In fact, one of my favorite dining experiences abroad was in Taormina, Sicily.  My family walked off the main drag and the tourist crowds to a side street, but we hadn't gone far.  There was a restaurant at the end of the path where an employee invited us in.  It had an English menu.  The restaurant was one of the most beautiful restaurants I have ever seen and the food was perfect.  A restaurant with some elements of a tourist destination isn't automatically bad.  I also think the corollary is true.  An out of the way local hole-in-the-wall with nobody speaks English isn't automatically good either.  One might assume a local grandmother is in the kitchen making traditional family dishes that taste better than a five-star restaurant.  It's also possible the food is terrible and the locals only go there for cheap beer and free wi-fi.

I suppose that's why I am supposed to do my own cooking on vacation, right?

My ideal vacation is one where I can spend my days exploring everything I want to explore, then eating a tasty meal before crashing into bed.  I am not looking to pretend I live there full time.  A vacation should be a vacation.  

Another argument against hotels over rentals is that hotels are sterile and bland.  The rooms have no character.  I understand this.  I love a place with some charm.  This is why I will often book bed and breakfasts or boutique hotels.  However, I don't go on vacation to spend time in my room.  I am as likely to stay in a major chain hotel if it's a Hilton property since Kevin and I are Hilton Honors members.  Our stays in Hiltons are cheaper and we get points we can use for added benefits.  The Hampton Inn where Kevin and I stay in Chincoteague may look like a typical chain hotel, but it is immaculately clean, has beautiful views, and has a friendly staff. Speaking of cleanliness, character can have its downsides.  Can I trust how clean a vacation rental is?  

Is character even a guarantee for vacation rentals?  The recent commercials I see for Airbnb and VRBO show quirky cabins and beach houses, glamping sites, and even castles and spaceships.  Families frolic in mansions.  How many rental properties - whether booked via a home share app or a traditional rental - look like that in real life?  How easily can those quirky properties be booked and how much do they cost? Most vacation rentals I have seen are not much less generically furnished and decorated than a hotel.  

What about the practical issues of a rental stay? Is there someone to help if a toilet clogs, a lamp burns out, or there is an ant infestation?   Is the reservation guaranteed?  What if you reserve a rental for peak travel times and the owner cancels at the last minute?  You could be stuck without a place to stay if everything else in the area is booked. 

When a vacation ends, rentals tend to have earlier checkout times.  Renters spend their final mornings packing and cleaning up.  In a hotel, all I have to do is finish packing and then I can enjoy a leisurely breakfast or last minute walk or swim.

But Rachel, you need to check your privilege.  You are forgetting the biggest advantage you have when you travel.  Not everyone can easily travel the traditional way.  You and Kevin travel by yourselves.

This is where my defense falls apart. I know I am privileged. I don't have kids.  When you have kids, it changes the game.  Kids need more space.  A small room in a boutique hotel or bed and breakfast doesn't have the space for children, particularly if you have more than one.  It's hard to make kids want to keep sharing a bed after a certain age.  How many hotel rooms can you afford to rent?  How many people will a hotel allow in one room?  

Sure a free hotel breakfast is cheaper and a better value than buying milk and cereal for the family, but what about lunch and dinner?  The costs of meals, even fast food takeout, can add up if you're gone several days and feeding a family of three or more.  

If your kids are young and loud and energetic, how do you keep them from disturbing other hotel guests? 

Travel is always more expensive at peak times.  Peak times are the times children aren't in school.  I have no kids so I can travel whenever I want.  I can take trips in the off-season or shoulder seasons when hotels and flights are cheaper.  What about parents who need to find ways to save when they can only travel at peak times?

Besides, rentals aren't the only alternative to hotels.  Some of my friends have timeshares or stay with  family members who have timeshares.  Some of my friends have RVs.  The former has many of the advantages hotels have.  The latter is something the owner has control over in terms of things like cleanliness and décor (if you own it and don't rent it).  

I also understand there are times when a rental house is the best option.  If you're traveling with a large group of friends or family, a house makes it easier for everyone to be together.  You can't stay up all night drinking wine, playing games, playing music, and talking and laughing in a hotel.  You can do that in your own rented living room or back yard though.  Growing up I took many trips in large groups and I understand the camaraderie that comes from having a central gathering place for everyone and not disturbing other guests.

Furthermore, I'm not a spoiled princess who could never "rough it".  I am willing to do some real camping if the opportunity came up.  In a case like that, doing the "work" of pitching a tent, building fires and cooking over the fire, foraging and firewood gathering are all part of the experience.  It’s a different experience from tourism and is meant to be part of vacation itself.  What I don’t want are the mundane domestic chores on top of the experience I want to have.

Well, we readers with kids are happy you have some empathy for us, but there is an elephant in the room you aren’t addressing.

Well, hello Mr. Pachyderm.  How are you?  Let’s talk about the thing I don’t want to address, that thing that makes me uncomfortable when I talk about traditional travel.

You claim you love your planet, but by exploring it, you are destroying it.

Here is the painful truth about traditional travel.  I am not reducing my carbon footprint- or any type of footprint - because I hang up my towels instead of asking for a fresh one every day.  Tourism is terrible for the planet.  It destroys the sites we are there to appreciate.  

If you ask me what some of my favorite vacations were, I would say things like the tour of the Bryce, Zion and the Grand Canyon I took in 2012 or the week I spent riding horses in Chianti wine country for my 10th anniversary.  Both of those trips required me to fly.  Think of the amount of jet fuel spent taking those trips.  Was that counteracted by whatever greenwashing the tour company engages in? 

I don't consider myself a "cruise person" but Kevin and I both have family members who love cruising and we have joined them on a few different cruises.  What could be more devastating to the ocean than an ocean liner filled with toilets, powered by fossil fuel, and generating tons of food waste? 

If I stay in a rental, I can turn off the lights when I don't need them and turn down the air conditioning.  The lights and AC (or heat) in the public areas of a hotel are always on.  If I am staying in a house, I will have to conserve hot water for the other guests.  Washing dishes after meals creates less waste than ordering takeout or using the disposable plates and forks provided for a free hotel breakfast.

Is it better to have four hundred people on one plane, or have three hundred more cars on the road?  Ideally we should be taking domestic trips by train or bus, but this the United States, where long-distance public transportation isn't readily available.  I often take the train when I travel on the east coast, but that option isn't easy, cheap, or even available if I want to travel west.  How do we handle traveling overseas?  I'm not sure how many racing yachts are available for us to all travel like Greta Thunberg.  

I suppose the pandemic helped me reduce my travel footprint.  I haven't been abroad since 2019.  The only trip I took besides Chincoteague in that time was a trip I took by train (but stayed in a hotel).  

I also hope some of the effort I make when I'm not traveling counters some of the damage I do when I travel.  When I'm home I take the train to work.  My car is a fuel-efficient, low-emissions, compact sedan.  There is no need from either a passenger standpoint, a safety standpoint, or a road condition standpoint for me to drive anything bigger no matter how much the Suburban Assault Vehicle industry tries to tell me otherwise.  I do my best to reduce waste at home.  Am I letting perfect be the enemy of good?  Maybe I'll be okay if I take an occasional trip, maybe even by plane, to a hotel now and then.  

I don't want this to be my vacation either.