Euro-American vacation tours

Ahhhhh Europe. From the time that I was much younger than I am now I have wanted to go to Europe. There is in my mind, as well as in the minds of the majority of Americans, a certain perspective on Europe and the things that one would like to see there. The pervasive feeling that is present here seems to be one of pop culture. It is the 'in' thing to do when you go to Europe to see Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower, the Leaning Tower of Pisa...the list can go on and on.

As a matter of fact one only needs to type in a search for European attractions and they will find these lists and travel guides already made for you. As an interesting question, are these guides made by Europeans or Americans? One has to wonder if these places that hold the captivation of the American public mean the same thing to those who live there. For instance if someone from Europe were to visit me, I would naturally take them to Niagara Falls, and they, if they are any indication of the majority of people have heard of it. However there are obviously other places that I would take them as well i.e. Duff's or even Pearl St. Brewery. Now they probably have not heard of these places (maybe), but they are well known to most who reside in the Buffalo region. Therefore it almost feels as though the importance of these places of great tourist importance are subject to a great deal of relativity. I have a feeling the same things happen in Europe and that those who take the 'standard package tour' might miss much if they choose to stay on the 'beaten path'. Having said this there truly is a vast difference between the type of attractions that are directed towards Europeans and those which are directed towards Americans.

The difference is that we are directed towards BUILDINGS. At least as far as I can tell, the vast majority of attractions which are directly advertised are cathedrals, castles, ancient ruins, monuments. Places that are old. I believe that this is what it breaks down to. We are a young culture, even though each of us comes from a much older culture historically speaking. The places of attraction that one is given as suggestion upon visiting Europe are those that portray the age of European cities and structures as contrasting the veritable newness of our own.

Now if we consider that the attractions in Europe are attractions because of their age (obviously there are other factors, not all old things are pleasant to look at) then to what does one ascribe the wonders of America? Although there are clearly suggestions to Europeans to visit the cities of the United States, the predominant amount of literature devoted to touring America focuses upon its landscapes. Even more specifically a great emphasis is placed upon its national parks, battlegrounds, and scenic locations. So in Europe, modern-day Americans, not unlike those of the 19th century,  are encouraged to take in the architecture and monumental buildings. However those traveling here from Europe are greatly encouraged to visit National Parks, and areas of 'wilderness'. It feels as though not much has changed from colonial times in that respect.

Skylines

Many modern cities tend to look the same these days. that isn't to say that all cities have to exact same features because there are obvious landmarks that are present in some cities that are not present in others. Consider Seattle's Space Needle or the Gateway Arch in Missouri. However there are differences in the way that European cities look in comparison to American ones.

The Skyline of Amsterdam
One of the most predominant differences that can be seen at first glance is that European cities appear to have fewer numbers of skyscrapers and other buildings that stand out from the skyline. Take for example this skyline of Amsterdam as compared to the skyline of New York City. The skyline of Amsterdam is dominated by much lower and more compacted buildings. The density of European cities is greater than that of American cities. That is not an indication of population but of the proximity of buildings. this has a lot to do with the age of the cities in question. American cities tend to have many more higher buildings but they are of an entirely different feeling from those in Europe.

Now then consider the appearance of a city like Munich, Germany as compared to New York City. The differences are aesthetic as well as architectural. The similar color scheme and construction style that can be seen on many of the buildings is indicative of a European city. It is very rare that you will see such similarities in an American city. The cities in Europe look as though they were planned at more or less the same time, whereas the American city looks like something that just got thrown together as money for various building projects was obtained, which is pretty much how it did happen or at least in terms of the contemporary look of cities. Munich is not the only place you can see this type of planning. Consider also the cities of Italy, or Denmark where cities retain the Old World charm which is absent in America.

This picture is of Toledo, Spain. Notice again the lack of "superstructures" as well as the closeness of the buildings. Also the aesthetic quality of the city is striking. The roofs all appear to be made of the same sorts of materials, if not the same color. The colors of the buildings themselves are the same if not similar. These cities are in direct contrast to a city like Chicago where it seems that a great portion of the buildings are skyscrapers.

A large part of me puts the differences in cities from America to Europe in terms of religion. The one thing you can clearly distinguish in the pictures of the European cities is the church. It looks as though the majority of the town sprang up around the church/cathedral, you can see the spires above everything else. However when you look at the skyline of Chicago its "steeples" are antennae not to mention the vast amounts of building which are way over the usual 4 to 7 story pattern one sees in the European city.

Irish Community

Upon inspection of Buffalo's numerous communities one is often overwhelmed at the amount of culture they can find and the specificity of that culture that shows up in tiny pockets throughout the city. This is a fairly vague statement as I am sure that you can find these pockets anywhere you look, in pretty much every city. Not being from Buffalo originally however but having lived here for the last 5 years, I am filled with questions regarding the ethnic and cultural backgrounds of those who built the structures that we now deem 'historical'. One of the more interesting places to me in this regard is the First Ward District of South Buffalo. Perhaps it is my Irish heritage that causes this connection but it is also something else. Upon inspection of the First Ward in the present time one can undoubtedly see the general disrepair that has befallen it, along with much of this once majestic city, but more importantly one can definitely see that it is was and is still an Irish neighborhood.  
Susan Hardwick in her article on ethnicity in landscape states that ""ethnic landscape" refers to the imprints on the land left by people who share a common identity linked to a common place of origin" (231) So it is not as though the Irish who settled in the First Ward built all of their structures in the shape of a shamrock or anything quite so gaudy but rather that we can see commonalities throughout the ways that their buildings are made and the types of structures they choose to make.

The First Ward, in this zoning map from 1855-1890 shows many different neighborhoods each with their own distinctive ethnic background. The First Ward is waterside and it is said that many of the Irish settlers that came there did so after having completed their work on the Erie Canal. Typically today many people do still conceive of communities as being based around members of the same ethnic group living within the same few block radius. However this was much more prevalent during the the industrialization of the country and this is especially true in the major urban areas.

So what distinguishes the areas of Irish settlement from that of others? Well...

For one thing the tavern or pub, while not a primarily Irish idea or structure is somehow one of the most prevalent things that comes to mind when considering what an Irish neighborhood looks like. Somehow a neighborhood that does not have a pub in it cannot possibly be seen as Irish. Buffalo's First Ward is no different than this. This is just as true in the mid 1800's as it is today, if not more-so.

These photos show the same building in obviously very different states of existence. The first picture is from approximately 1850 when it was still a hotel, called interestingly enough, the German Hotel. The second is from much more recently when in 2008 its roof was lost in heavy winds. It has since been demolished.
It should be no surprise that the pub is the enduring element of Irish heritage that one thinks of whenever Irish culture is mentioned. Partly because yes, Irish people do drink...alot... but also because upon constructing their new world as a reflection of the one they left behind they would have been completely remiss in not making the pub, which was to be the center of communal activities. Lets compare the older picture of the building above, McBrides or even Blackthorn's, with this picture of a Dublin hostel.

The similarities of the building are startling. Notice the four windows on the upper floors and the two on the mid floors. Also the shapes of the buildings are the same as well. While the building from Dublin does look decidedly more modern one has to wonder at whether or not this is because of a present-day face-lift or if it is just the lighting. However the Hardwick article does say something interesting about this, " the physical and social isolation of the Scots-Irish and other immigration groups in the United States in certain parts of the country encouraged the creation and retention of unique landscape features."