So, as I was walking through Buenos Aires yesterday, I thought about an interesting fact/problem that tourists may have in big cities. I believe that typically, the best stuff in a city is not on the main streets/avenues/boulevards. They are on the smaller side streets. And by best, I mean "best bang for your buck" stuff, as for food and for goods. Let me pause here a moment to define best "bang for your buck":
Let's say there's a restaurant on a main drag in New York. A meal is rated a 10, the best score a meal can receive. The price is $50. So with some math, you paid $5 for every point. Now, let's say on a side street, you get some choripan and fries. It rates at an 8, but only costs $25. Again, with some math, you've effectively paid $3.13 per star. Better "bang for your buck". Not as good a meal, but much less of a ticket price, too.
Now, I call this a "problem" for tourists. Really, it's not. It's just, life. People can spend their money however they choose. Maybe they really enjoyed their meal and were happy to pay that much more for it. And of course the restaurant and especially the city are happy for the extra revenue. But it seems like you'll only experience touristy things this way. And to me that seems bad for the tourist and the city's reputation.
How does this happen? Well, the bigger streets have more foot traffic and therefore command a higher rent. So only the more expensive places can afford to exist on the bigger streets. In cities, tourists, in order to see more and because bigger streets can take you more places, tend to stick to bigger streets. So they end up missing out on some of the better smaller stuff.
Unless you're a savvy tourist like me.
Ok, look, this idea sounded good when I first sat down to write this. I've now realized that I haven't said anything. I won't apologize for wasting your time because I doubt you came to this unimportant blog inadvertently, or stayed inadvertently. What I mean is, you knew what this was.
Love,
B
Let's say there's a restaurant on a main drag in New York. A meal is rated a 10, the best score a meal can receive. The price is $50. So with some math, you paid $5 for every point. Now, let's say on a side street, you get some choripan and fries. It rates at an 8, but only costs $25. Again, with some math, you've effectively paid $3.13 per star. Better "bang for your buck". Not as good a meal, but much less of a ticket price, too.
Now, I call this a "problem" for tourists. Really, it's not. It's just, life. People can spend their money however they choose. Maybe they really enjoyed their meal and were happy to pay that much more for it. And of course the restaurant and especially the city are happy for the extra revenue. But it seems like you'll only experience touristy things this way. And to me that seems bad for the tourist and the city's reputation.
How does this happen? Well, the bigger streets have more foot traffic and therefore command a higher rent. So only the more expensive places can afford to exist on the bigger streets. In cities, tourists, in order to see more and because bigger streets can take you more places, tend to stick to bigger streets. So they end up missing out on some of the better smaller stuff.
Unless you're a savvy tourist like me.
Ok, look, this idea sounded good when I first sat down to write this. I've now realized that I haven't said anything. I won't apologize for wasting your time because I doubt you came to this unimportant blog inadvertently, or stayed inadvertently. What I mean is, you knew what this was.
Love,
B
No comments:
Post a Comment