To paraphrase, "I went to a place whose people do not want to be visited by tourists; they have opted not to develop any tourist-focused amenities, and they've enacted policies which discourage tourists from visiting, which made my visit as a tourist boring and inconvenient. I can't imagine why they did that!"
The article leaves me far more puzzled by the author's mindset than that of the Ålanders.
This almost reads like a parody - could it be that the author really doesn't get it?
I visited this weekend / and we wanted to bike through some of the islands to the mainland of Finland. The only problem? Their anti-growth state of mind which makes it hard for tourism to shine. / I can understand wanting to keep housing prices low but if demand is great, just build more like they do everywhere that is popular? / What I cannot understand is a fee to simply pass through. It is just super anti-growth. / We will not exactly recommend people going there because it's kind of boring for a tourist.
That's the whole point. They don't want tourists, and they don't want tourism based growth, or any other kind of growth for that matter, any more than a person would want an actual growth on their body!
Maybe but I do think it makes the life there more miserable for both inhabitants and those visiting.
I have lived on Gotland as mentioned in the article and it is similar in many ways but life on Gotland is way more interesting due to the tourism. You still have the calm life of the country side except that during the summer there is a little more people there.
Those people enhance the lives on Gotland because it makes life on Gotland possible for many instead for only a few. Personally I think the anti-tourism mindset is stupid and that is what I was trying to convey in the text. Of course you can think differently but that still doesn't invalidate my points.
>life on Gotland is way more interesting due to the tourism
Perhaps those people don't want "a little more people there", and think their life is enough interesting as it is?
>Personally I think the anti-tourism mindset is stupid and that is what I was trying to convey in the text.
Try living in some places burnened by tourism and see how bad it gets. And consider how Gotland might be in a trajectory to get in that list, as welcoming tourists can easily cascade to further tourism and changing the local economy, and then it's a race to the bottom.
There are tourists there. Waiting some tourists doesn't have to mean wanting any and all.
On the island where I was born (not Åland), they recently placed some large boulders to block access to a beach where penny-pinchers liked to park their camper vans for free. Good riddance.
Just visited Åland two years ago. It was perfectly tourist-friendly on the main island, where most of the people live.
The author speaks of visiting Åva island in Brandö (county). That place is tiny; the population of the county is 436, split between multiple islands. It can't really support a booming service industry. Again, go check out the main island, that's where the party's at.
The author also complains about high fees on ferries if you're just driving through. The ferries are small, and primarily for the locals to move around; the high fee discourages drive-thru on purpose. Imagine you're trying to get to the other island for work or whatever and there's 300 cars queuing for places on a 60-car ferry.
I have visited the main island before as well, but honestly a big reason to why it is like that is because they are somewhat hostile to tourism. Yes it is small and obviously you can't expect a booming service industry but I think you could expect something at least.
If you read on their website it appears like they want visitors but yet seems to do a lot in order not to receive them. If they were more open to tourists they could probably afford more or bigger boats or simply more trips. It's not an unsolvable problem.
We just wanted to pass the islands and see it but it wasn't really feasible due to the restrictions placed. I wonder if it really has the intended effect.
OMG this must be the most tone-deaf travelogue in the world. Hey, nice peaceful place, lots of nature—but why on Earth don't people there want to spoil it? Growth, we need growth! People here are anti-growth!
To paraphrase, "I went to a place whose people do not want to be visited by tourists; they have opted not to develop any tourist-focused amenities, and they've enacted policies which discourage tourists from visiting, which made my visit as a tourist boring and inconvenient. I can't imagine why they did that!"
The article leaves me far more puzzled by the author's mindset than that of the Ålanders.
Ironically the tagline on the blog home page starts out:
> For years I have dreamed of breaking free of monetary restrictions and living a calm life on the country side.
I was expecting an article about the refreshing change of mentality of a small community.
Instead it was just someone completely missing the point.
This almost reads like a parody - could it be that the author really doesn't get it?
I visited this weekend / and we wanted to bike through some of the islands to the mainland of Finland. The only problem? Their anti-growth state of mind which makes it hard for tourism to shine. / I can understand wanting to keep housing prices low but if demand is great, just build more like they do everywhere that is popular? / What I cannot understand is a fee to simply pass through. It is just super anti-growth. / We will not exactly recommend people going there because it's kind of boring for a tourist.
That's the whole point. They don't want tourists, and they don't want tourism based growth, or any other kind of growth for that matter, any more than a person would want an actual growth on their body!
Maybe but I do think it makes the life there more miserable for both inhabitants and those visiting.
I have lived on Gotland as mentioned in the article and it is similar in many ways but life on Gotland is way more interesting due to the tourism. You still have the calm life of the country side except that during the summer there is a little more people there.
Those people enhance the lives on Gotland because it makes life on Gotland possible for many instead for only a few. Personally I think the anti-tourism mindset is stupid and that is what I was trying to convey in the text. Of course you can think differently but that still doesn't invalidate my points.
>life on Gotland is way more interesting due to the tourism
Perhaps those people don't want "a little more people there", and think their life is enough interesting as it is?
>Personally I think the anti-tourism mindset is stupid and that is what I was trying to convey in the text.
Try living in some places burnened by tourism and see how bad it gets. And consider how Gotland might be in a trajectory to get in that list, as welcoming tourists can easily cascade to further tourism and changing the local economy, and then it's a race to the bottom.
What it reads like is the official statement of the Tourism Committee. Love it.
The self-righteous attitude of so many parasitic tourists is sickening. Dance for my Instagram you locals, here's a bone and you better be grateful.
So you’re saying they would rather be poor just as long as they can avoid tourists?
They'd rather be whatever they want to be, including poor (or merely poorer-than-with-tourism), if they can avoid tourists.
Being offered more money isn't a "bend-over-and-take-it" proposition unless one allows it to be. People can choose any number of things over it.
There are tourists there. Waiting some tourists doesn't have to mean wanting any and all.
On the island where I was born (not Åland), they recently placed some large boulders to block access to a beach where penny-pinchers liked to park their camper vans for free. Good riddance.
Åland is where the rich Finnish-Swede elites live. It's a small club and you are not invited.
Poor isn't quite the right term for Åland.
Just visited Åland two years ago. It was perfectly tourist-friendly on the main island, where most of the people live.
The author speaks of visiting Åva island in Brandö (county). That place is tiny; the population of the county is 436, split between multiple islands. It can't really support a booming service industry. Again, go check out the main island, that's where the party's at.
The author also complains about high fees on ferries if you're just driving through. The ferries are small, and primarily for the locals to move around; the high fee discourages drive-thru on purpose. Imagine you're trying to get to the other island for work or whatever and there's 300 cars queuing for places on a 60-car ferry.
I have visited the main island before as well, but honestly a big reason to why it is like that is because they are somewhat hostile to tourism. Yes it is small and obviously you can't expect a booming service industry but I think you could expect something at least.
If you read on their website it appears like they want visitors but yet seems to do a lot in order not to receive them. If they were more open to tourists they could probably afford more or bigger boats or simply more trips. It's not an unsolvable problem.
We just wanted to pass the islands and see it but it wasn't really feasible due to the restrictions placed. I wonder if it really has the intended effect.
Wait, "between Finland and Sverige"?!
Why not "between Suomi and Sverige"?
Or "between Finland and Sweden"?
Is it because Åland is mostly Swedish speaking that "Finland" gets written in English and "Sverig" gets written in Swedish?
I think it's because the author's native language is Swedish and had a harder time seeing mistakes which use Swedish instead of English.
"There were no adress and the" is another example - the Swedish is "adress" while the English is "address".
Finland is Finland in Swedish too.
Sorry typing error, fixed now.
I can only assume that this blog post is an extremely dry variety of sarcasm. Very, very well done, and an enjoyable tongue-in-cheeks read.
OMG this must be the most tone-deaf travelogue in the world. Hey, nice peaceful place, lots of nature—but why on Earth don't people there want to spoil it? Growth, we need growth! People here are anti-growth!