B Vaughan wrote:
>
> >Christ, first you complain about the hotels ruining the view, but they you
> >complain that the entire park is not paved for your parking convenience,
> >and in your mind there is less to see because the place is packed with
> >people. There us a large parking lot just south of the falls where you pay
> >to park for the day and get a pass on the People Mover shuttle buses.
>
> If they hadn't put so many hotels up right smack across from the
> falls, the traffic wouldn't be so horrendous, would it?
I don't think the traffic has been any heavier since the hotels were built.
The hotels are close enough that people can walk. Those hotels also provide
parking.
> The large parking lot with the people mover pass was *full* when I was
> there.
You must have picked the one day that it was full.
>
> >> I wanted to see the falls. The immediate area of the falls on the
> >> Canadian side resembles Cancun.
> >
> >Bullshit. The "immediate area* is a park. There is a road along the side of
> >the river and a nice wide sidewalk, plus a paved pedestrian walkway right
> >by the falls.
>
> What's on the other side of the road?
South of the falls it is park land like Dufferin Islands and the
greenhouse. By the falls itself there is a large parking lot, one that is
often full and perhaps the one that you thought was the People Mover
parking lot. From there to Clifton hill is a park.
> I spent most of my time walking in the park on the American side. I
> also went to the observation tower over the river and took the Maid
> of the Mist ride. Is that a tourist trap? Because that was the only
> paid attraction I frequented.
Most people rave about the Maid of the Mist. When I think of tourist traps
I think of those tacky shops full of crappy souvenirs, the cheesey museums,
over-priced refreshments stands etc.
> >Most of those tourist traps were there 30 years ago. Some of them have
> >changed hands or changed themes. The road was repaved and roadside parking
> >removed along the last mile of the parkway by the falls. The sidewalks have
> >been replaced and there was a lot of interlocking brick installed. The old
> >concession building by the falls was refurbished. A parking lot was added
> >when they removed the roadside parking. Other than that, the "immediate
> >vicinity" of the falls on the Canadian side has not changed much in the 43
> >years I have been living in the area.
>
> Did the high rise hotels just spring up like mushrooms?
You keep bouncing around here. You were complaining about the tourist
traps, most of which are limited to a few blocks along Clifton Hill and
along Victoria St., which starts close to half a mile from the falls. The
hotels simply look down over the falls. I agree that it was a shame to
build them there, but the view of the falls from the Canadian side has not
changed. I used to spend much of the summer working in the vicinity, and
when walking along the Canadian side and looking at the falls you don't
even notice the hotels.
> Look, I've done a lot of hiking all over the world, on four
> continents, actually, but that's not what I would go to Niagara falls
> for. I don't visit tourist traps, period, not here, not there, not
> anywhere.
Yet when you went to Niagara Falls you were apparently overwhelmed by the
glitzy tourist trap area which is a half mile from the falls and only
covers a few blocks. You didn't bother to check out any of the good stuff.
> If you actually enter the park there's no problem finding a parking
> space. It's just in the tarted up towns on the perimeter that there's
> a problem and unfortunately you can't get into the park without going
> through those towns. We did a lot of hiking there, but as I said,
> Niagara's Falls has one big attraction: IT'S THE FALLS. If you've
> lived there for 30 years and don't think the ambience has been ruined,
> I can only say that it must have happened so slowly that it crept up
> on you. Or maybe you have a fondness for neon.
I don't find it at all hard to avoid that small area with the offensive
neon lights and carnival atmosphere.
>
> I visited Niagara Falls once in the 1960s, once in the 1980s and once
> in 2002 or something like that. In the 1980s the American side had
> improved since my first visit and the Canadian side was nice but
> already getting a bit overbuilt. On that visit, we spent most of our
> time on the Canadian side. On my latest visit, I was pretty much
> horrified.The Italian first time visitor to the falls who was with me
> couldn't believe the level of tackiness. I could only say, "You should
> have seen it 30 years ago."
The Canadian side has always been much more developed than the American
side. Up until 1971 when the drinking age dropped in Ontario, the American
side was mostly tacky little bars that catered to under aged Canadian
drinkers. When Ontario dropped the drinking age to 18, as it was in NY at
the time, the whole area when belly up. Then in the 80s they started
upgrading things. There was some massive demolition and construction. But
as much as they spend on construction, there is nothing they were able to
do about the fact that the most panoramic view of the American and Canadian
side is from Canada. |