New Orleans/Punta Cana theory

abe · Sep 7, 2005

In today's NY Times there was a long piece on how to lure citizens back to New Orleans in the long run after "reconstruction".

It got me to thinking about why Punta Cana is successful and it's not necessarily a pleasant thought, but my theory is that PC has done well because many tourists simply do not want to see the real living conditions of local residents. PC, much like Cancun, was essentially carved out of a region that had very little local population to start with.

Tourists are more or less insulated from "the local population" in Punta Cana and I have heard many Americans say that they prefer that. I am not judging that, just stating that some money still flows to the DR via its tourism business and one must take into account why tourists come.

I have spent enough time in the DR to appreciate that living conditions are not as "horrible" as what many tourists perceive them to be and I don't want the thread to spin off into a discussion of whether I am a pollyanna or not. I am also a believer in cultural tourism, but the bulk of the travelling public simply isn't. They want to get warm and pampered and rested--and sometimes drunk.

I really do not like the notion that New Orleans might better ensure its future by becoming a sterile Disney-like place, but since the French Quarter has largely been spared, the Garden District has not had the damage that much of the rest of the city has had, perhaps the city's future really does lie more in becoming a Williamsburgh-like attraction.

While it certainly is a slap in the face to preservationists and right-thinking multi-culturalists who appreciate the tapestry that is NOLA, maybe some of you have a thought on how best to ensure that this marvelous cultural gem does not simply disappear.

And, is Punta Cana in some way a model for carving out a destination--albeit a sterile one?

NALs · Sep 9, 2005

abe said:
In today's NY Times there was a long piece on how to lure citizens back to New Orleans in the long run after "reconstruction".

It got me to thinking about why Punta Cana is successful and it's not necessarily a pleasant thought, but my theory is that PC has done well because many tourists simply do not want to see the real living conditions of local residents. PC, much like Cancun, was essentially carved out of a region that had very little local population to start with.

Tourists are more or less insulated from "the local population" in Punta Cana and I have heard many Americans say that they prefer that. I am not judging that, just stating that some money still flows to the DR via its tourism business and one must take into account why tourists come.

I have spent enough time in the DR to appreciate that living conditions are not as "horrible" as what many tourists perceive them to be and I don't want the thread to spin off into a discussion of whether I am a pollyanna or not. I am also a believer in cultural tourism, but the bulk of the travelling public simply isn't. They want to get warm and pampered and rested--and sometimes drunk.

I really do not like the notion that New Orleans might better ensure its future by becoming a sterile Disney-like place, but since the French Quarter has largely been spared, the Garden District has not had the damage that much of the rest of the city has had, perhaps the city's future really does lie more in becoming a Williamsburgh-like attraction.

While it certainly is a slap in the face to preservationists and right-thinking multi-culturalists who appreciate the tapestry that is NOLA, maybe some of you have a thought on how best to ensure that this marvelous cultural gem does not simply disappear.

And, is Punta Cana in some way a model for carving out a destination--albeit a sterile one?

Punta Cana is extremely succesful for one thing and one thing only, the beach!

There is no other stretch of sand as beautiful that is as easily assesible as is Punta Cana-Bavaro-Macao on the entire island.

There are a few nicer one, but none are as long or as easily reached as Punta Cana.

Thus, it took off once the minimum infrastructural projects were in place.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how the people live or anything else, only the beach and a few extras here and there.

What has hampered Juan Dolio's development? The beach, it's nice, but not that nice.

Bayahibe has a better stretch of sand and thus, more success than Juan Dolio.

The northcoast has the halfmoon shaped beaches with mountain backdrops and that has been a major factor in its extreme popularity.

The Barahona coast has many pebbly beaches and rather small nice beaches, thus it has not developed as hoped, though the scenery is spectacular.

The beach is the defining factor, nothing else.

All that's needed is a spectacular beach and an airport, the rest of the crowd and hotels will follow.

If there are no spectacular beaches, then there will be no airport and alas, no tourism... along the coast at least.

abe · Sep 9, 2005

thanks for the input.

Do you have any sense of whether Americans in particular seek out tropical destinations that have minimal "visible poor people?"

Enough Americans have told me that in my two +decades in the tourism business, to lend credence to it.

NALs · Sep 9, 2005

abe said:
thanks for the input.

Do you have any sense of whether Americans in particular seek out tropical destinations that have minimal "visible poor people?"

Enough Americans have told me that in my two +decades in the tourism business, to lend credence to it.

I think the reason this country has such a low percentage of its tourist industry patronized by Americans (as oppose to everybody else combined) is due to the fact that Haiti is next door.

Many Americans look at a map (let's be realistic here, Dominican Republic is huge in a Caribbean map, smacked in the center. To say that they missed the country is a big lie), they see Haiti on the west end and figure, DR - I don't think so.

We should be having upwards of 60% if not higher of our tourist industry be American patronized and yet, that is not the case.

I don't know if Americans in particular seek places with less visible poverty. I suppose it depends on the segment of the market. The more up market, the more up market the places must look, thus poverty or the appearance of poverty must be minimized.

But, then we got places like Jamaica (with the vast majority of the visitors hailing from the US and its a majority that is undisputed in sheer numbers), an impoverished island that is popular with American tourists. Jamaica is even more dangerous than the DR in terms of its crime rate, much of it is in Kingston, but Americans prefer Jamaica over Dominican Republic in those respects.

Americans prefer Puerto Rico (an island with a much higher rate of crime than the DR and a murder rate supposedly four times higher than that of mainland USA, not to mention relative poverty since Puerto Rico maybe wealthier than the average Caribbean, but its still poor by north american standards).

Americans love to visit St Lucia, another impoverished island in the Caribbean.

Thus, the question here should not be are Americans afraid of poor places. The answer depends on what type of Americans we are talking about here, but rather, are Americans afraid of Haiti. The answer is a clear yes, and the DR is "denied" a huge number of American tourists simply because we have the only land border with a country that has been called "the poor black spot of the Americas" as if Haiti's problems are contagious and gives bad luck to anyone who visits there, let alone get close to it. Then again, the media has become Haiti's brochure to the world and what the media shows is not pretty in any sense. Given that the media only tell part of the truth, Haiti gets a bad reputation and the DR gets a residue of it simply for sharing the island.

Never the less, Punta Cana (which is as faraway from Haiti as you can be in the DR) is one of the most popular places for the Americans who do make the journey to visit this country. As usual, a good number of them leave regretting not making the trip earlier. That's when they learn that although the DR is on the same island as Haiti, the DR is NOT Haiti and, God willing, it will never be a part of Haiti. Hispaniola is an island with two different worlds. The Dominican Republic is simply a collection of different worlds as well, the world of the all-inclusives, the world of high culture, the world of middle class rat race, the world of former 1st wordlers taking a shot in "the south" and the world of misery.

It's easy to forget that we live in a world where the average income worldwide is bare $5,000 US. I find it rather distasteful and ignorant that first worldlers will refuse to visit the regions of the earth that resembles the norms rather than the exceptions of reality of life on earth.

Only 10% of the world's population lives in the so called first world. Only 10%. Think about that for a moment, only 10%.

33% of the world's people are either Chinese or Indians, think about that for a moment. 33%, Chinese and/or Indians.

To think only in terms of first world countries and more so, Eurocentric parts of the world is to ignore the reality of a world that is neither eurocentric or first world status.

To get a better understand of the world, look at the DR. It's a microcosm of the big picture.

Central Santo Domingo can be considered the first world where the wealth the rest of the nation (the developing world) flows to. There are a few other "first worlds" imbedded in the developing world (ie. Santiago, etc which would correlate to places like Saudi Arabia, etc), but it's a vastly poor place.

Of course, driving down the Malecon in Santo Domingo, or shopping at the shopping malls, or simply jogging in the parque mirador del sur, its hard to believe that its a poor place, but all it takes is a drive out of the wealthy areas and it becomes crystal clear. This is how the entire world is set up.

The core are Europe and US, the periphery is the rest of the world.

The rest of the world is much bigger and more common than the core, and despite that, many from the core don't want to see the much bigger periphery.

What do you think?

Is it the guilt?

Is it the sadness of reality?

Is it the realization of global inequalities?

It's easy to simply live life sorrounded by material things, but its not easy to look straight into the eye of that person who has been deprived of his/her most basic necessities of life. So much abundance on one side, so much scarcity on the other.

Here in Santo Domingo, reality strikes easily and hard sometimes even within the "wealthy" areas of the cities. Maybe first worldlers simply like to live in la la land and thus, prefer to visit places that are not poor.

But, not visiting a poor places, does not make it untrue.

Whose is wrong? The one who ignores the poor or the one who is poor?

Who is doing wrong?

Sorry for sort of getting out of topic, but it all ties in to the overall topic.

I went to a batey on Sunday and I still can't get the images I saw out of my head. It's not as if I did not knew about it, but when you see it, when you touch it, when you smell it, it just hits you like a ball of fire...

It hits you hard, because the illusion has evaporated and reality has struck hard...

Reality has struck very very hard......

Dolores1 · Sep 9, 2005

I am almost sure that a close look at the actual statistics will show that the Dominican Republic is the Caribbean (outside of Cancun) leading tourism destination for US tourists going by air, with Punta Cana being the single destination leader.

The reason the DR was not the leader years back was because there were no flights from the US. Once Punta Cana caught on, the flights followed.

NALs · Sep 9, 2005

Dolores said:
I am almost sure that a close look at the actual statistics will show that the Dominican Republic is the Caribbean (outside of Cancun) leading tourism destination for US tourists going by air, with Punta Cana being the single destination leader.

The reason the DR was not the leader years back was because there were no flights from the US. Once Punta Cana caught on, the flights followed.

Certainly true, but only after taking a close look at Puerto Rico's American percentage of tourists. However, Americans still make up only 30% plus of the total tourists who visit this country.

Compare that percentage with places like Bahamas, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Virigin Islands, places that range from 70% to 90% even higher American tourists.

Dolores1 · Sep 9, 2005

Nal0whs said:
Certainly true, but only after taking a close look at Puerto Rico's American percentage of tourists. However, Americans still make up only 30% plus of the total tourists who visit this country.

Compare that percentage with places like Bahamas, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Virigin Islands, places that range from 70% to 90% even higher American tourists.

Actually, the numbers should be more around 40% when adding in all the Dominicans that live in the US that vacation here.

But also, it is not such a bad thing that the country has a tourist mix. I think the hoteliers have learned their lesson to not depend on any market and strive to keep it that way.

http://dr1.com/travelnews/archive/2005/tnews020805.html

abe · Sep 10, 2005

Full circle to NOLA

Nal's response certainly makes me think that the coverage of the tragedy in NOLA will link vacationers' narrow minds even more directly to NOLA being the Haiti of the US than ever before.

It might take a Disney-fication of that city to bring it back. Creepy, but perhaps not too far off the mark.

Thanks for your thoughts.

ALB3 · Sep 10, 2005

NalOwhs,

I'll not dispute the fact that many Americans go to Jamaica, Virgin Isles, Trinidad & Tobago, and Puerto Rico than the DR. I will dispute your reasons. I submit that with the exception of Puerto Rico, most Americans go to the other islands because they are English speaking, and most people in Puerto Rico speak English in addition to Spanish. I just came back from 2 weeks in Puerto Rico myself. Unfortunately, Americans are not as open minded when it comes to learning other languages. Nothing to do with Haiti being next door. For goodness sakes all of the cruise lines make stops in Haiti.

Nal0whs said:
I think the reason this country has such a low percentage of its tourist industry patronized by Americans (as oppose to everybody else combined) is due to the fact that Haiti is next door.

Many Americans look at a map (let's be realistic here, Dominican Republic is huge in a Caribbean map, smacked in the center. To say that they missed the country is a big lie), they see Haiti on the west end and figure, DR - I don't think so.

We should be having upwards of 60% if not higher of our tourist industry be American patronized and yet, that is not the case.

I don't know if Americans in particular seek places with less visible poverty. I suppose it depends on the segment of the market. The more up market, the more up market the places must look, thus poverty or the appearance of poverty must be minimized.

But, then we got places like Jamaica (with the vast majority of the visitors hailing from the US and its a majority that is undisputed in sheer numbers), an impoverished island that is popular with American tourists. Jamaica is even more dangerous than the DR in terms of its crime rate, much of it is in Kingston, but Americans prefer Jamaica over Dominican Republic in those respects.

Americans prefer Puerto Rico (an island with a much higher rate of crime than the DR and a murder rate supposedly four times higher than that of mainland USA, not to mention relative poverty since Puerto Rico maybe wealthier than the average Caribbean, but its still poor by north american standards).

Americans love to visit St Lucia, another impoverished island in the Caribbean.

Thus, the question here should not be are Americans afraid of poor places. The answer depends on what type of Americans we are talking about here, but rather, are Americans afraid of Haiti. The answer is a clear yes, and the DR is "denied" a huge number of American tourists simply because we have the only land border with a country that has been called "the poor black spot of the Americas" as if Haiti's problems are contagious and gives bad luck to anyone who visits there, let alone get close to it. Then again, the media has become Haiti's brochure to the world and what the media shows is not pretty in any sense. Given that the media only tell part of the truth, Haiti gets a bad reputation and the DR gets a residue of it simply for sharing the island.

Never the less, Punta Cana (which is as faraway from Haiti as you can be in the DR) is one of the most popular places for the Americans who do make the journey to visit this country. As usual, a good number of them leave regretting not making the trip earlier. That's when they learn that although the DR is on the same island as Haiti, the DR is NOT Haiti and, God willing, it will never be a part of Haiti. Hispaniola is an island with two different worlds. The Dominican Republic is simply a collection of different worlds as well, the world of the all-inclusives, the world of high culture, the world of middle class rat race, the world of former 1st wordlers taking a shot in "the south" and the world of misery.

It's easy to forget that we live in a world where the average income worldwide is bare $5,000 US. I find it rather distasteful and ignorant that first worldlers will refuse to visit the regions of the earth that resembles the norms rather than the exceptions of reality of life on earth.

Only 10% of the world's population lives in the so called first world. Only 10%. Think about that for a moment, only 10%.

33% of the world's people are either Chinese or Indians, think about that for a moment. 33%, Chinese and/or Indians.

To think only in terms of first world countries and more so, Eurocentric parts of the world is to ignore the reality of a world that is neither eurocentric or first world status.

To get a better understand of the world, look at the DR. It's a microcosm of the big picture.

Central Santo Domingo can be considered the first world where the wealth the rest of the nation (the developing world) flows to. There are a few other "first worlds" imbedded in the developing world (ie. Santiago, etc which would correlate to places like Saudi Arabia, etc), but it's a vastly poor place.

Of course, driving down the Malecon in Santo Domingo, or shopping at the shopping malls, or simply jogging in the parque mirador del sur, its hard to believe that its a poor place, but all it takes is a drive out of the wealthy areas and it becomes crystal clear. This is how the entire world is set up.

The core are Europe and US, the periphery is the rest of the world.

The rest of the world is much bigger and more common than the core, and despite that, many from the core don't want to see the much bigger periphery.

What do you think?

Is it the guilt?

Is it the sadness of reality?

Is it the realization of global inequalities?

It's easy to simply live life sorrounded by material things, but its not easy to look straight into the eye of that person who has been deprived of his/her most basic necessities of life. So much abundance on one side, so much scarcity on the other.

Here in Santo Domingo, reality strikes easily and hard sometimes even within the "wealthy" areas of the cities. Maybe first worldlers simply like to live in la la land and thus, prefer to visit places that are not poor.

But, not visiting a poor places, does not make it untrue.

Whose is wrong? The one who ignores the poor or the one who is poor?

Who is doing wrong?

Sorry for sort of getting out of topic, but it all ties in to the overall topic.

I went to a batey on Sunday and I still can't get the images I saw out of my head. It's not as if I did not knew about it, but when you see it, when you touch it, when you smell it, it just hits you like a ball of fire...

It hits you hard, because the illusion has evaporated and reality has struck hard...

Reality has struck very very hard......

abe · Sep 11, 2005

RE: NOLA's future

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/magazine/11QUESTIONS.html

This thoughtful commentator on US culture had this to say in today's NYT about the future of NOLA.

So as not to stray too far from DR-1's purpose, this is the last post I will make on this topic.

Thanks for everyone's input.

NY1 · Sep 11, 2005

I think Americans as a whole are not that adventurous. What I mean is that they usually go to places that they personally know someone who has travelled before them. That is why, Montego Bay, Cancun and Nassau are very popular destinations.

In time, PC has become that. More and more Americans are travelling to this region because of the beach and lets not forget the quality of the hotels. These hotels are newer and have much more amenities than most properties in Pop.
While it is true that many people go to an AI and never leave the gates of the region, I don't think that is the reason PC has become so popular.

SamGompers · Jan 20, 2006

DR is in a very competitive market for USA tourists (and when Cuba opens up, this will become even more competitive). The drawbacks for many Americans who choose not to go to DR are language and relative lack of enclaving. Most US'ers don't want to deal with a foreign language, especially spanish (and by implication with spanish-speakers, who are marked far differently by their language than for instance french-speakers or italian-speakers). Punta Cana is the exception that proves the rule - - of course it has beautiful beaches - - but there are tons of beautiful beaches in DR and elsewhere in the Caribe and even in the U.S. PC has worked so well because it has become highly enclaved - - US tourists fly directly into PC (avoiding contact with natives and non-english speakers) and can vacation completely on-resort. Indeed, there is nothing in PC but resorts - - essentially. This is its main attraction - - it could be a destination anywhere in the Caribe except that it's cheaper. Though there are plenty of AI's on the north coast - - the north coast hasn't achieved the concentration of AI's necessary for that kind of experience. (This is why Jamaica - - an apallingly poor and violent country, far more than DR - - has become THE tourist destination for East Coast US tourists - - huge mega-complexes that are almost entirely autonomous from Jamaica itself - - artificial and highly policed tourist archipelagos -- plus english language in Jamaica.)

US tourists are different from Candadian or European tourists - - in that when they travel overseas (which is not nearly as common for US vacationers as those from Canada or Europe) they look for the least risky vacation possible and for the one that most resembles Disneyland (ie. Atlantis in the Bahamas, which has succeeded by becoming even more Disneyland than Disneyland).

mikey007 · Jan 21, 2006

new orleans punta cana

are u sure of your stats that jamaica receives more us tourists than dr jamaica pays for more advertising dr should allocate moe money into tourist advertising

aegap · Jan 21, 2006

ALB3 said:
NalOwhs,

I'll not dispute the fact that many Americans go to Jamaica, Virgin Isles, Trinidad & Tobago, and Puerto Rico than the DR. I will dispute your reasons. I submit that with the exception of Puerto Rico, most Americans go to the other islands because they are English speaking, and most people in Puerto Rico speak English in addition to Spanish. I just came back from 2 weeks in Puerto Rico myself. Unfortunately, Americans are not as open minded when it comes to learning other languages. Nothing to do with Haiti being next door. For goodness sakes all of the cruise lines make stops in Haiti.

Nal's reason may not be the absolute reason, but it certainly is one of the main reason....

If in doubt read the following New York Times travel advisory, which was written right around the last time Haiti began to go down tube.

Here is an excerpt:

[...]as scenes of civil unrest in Haiti flashed across television screens in February and early March, the phones started ringing at travel companies here and in the United States as jittery American travelers started asking, Is the Dominican Republic safe?

It was enough to make some travel agents fear that tourism to the Dominican Republic, which has become increasingly popular among Americans, could be affected. ''We had people calling every week and I was a little bit worried,''[...]

MeDominican · Jan 22, 2006

Long history of political instability and social upheaval

ALB3 said:
NalOwhs,

..... Nothing to do with Haiti being next door. For goodness sakes all of the cruise lines make stops in Haiti.

Not trying to be sarcastic, but which cruise lines, and what part of Haiti? Are you referring to Labadee, Haiti, which the cruiselines (i.e. Royal Caribbean) that stop there, prefer to list as Labadee, Hispaniola, as to avoid mentioning "Haiti," and when the ship stops at this port (beach) it offers no excursions within Haiti....

THERE ARE many Americans that appear not to understand that DR and Haiti are two separate countries with different culture, etc., although located on the same island....

In fact, on a recent trip to Punta Cana I sat on the plane next to an American couple travelling to DR for the first time. They were staying only in Punta Cana. They asked me, "what areas would you advise us to stay away from, what about Haiti?"

The DR has a long history of political instability and frequent social upheavals, and I believe that this is part of the reason that Americans stayed away for some time. I also think that the DR was not marketing its tourism enough to attract US tourists, etc.

MeDominican

aegap · Jan 22, 2006

Good point MD.

The actual name of the area is Labadie, Haiti. Royal caribbean calls it Labadee? Hispaniola,

and their website describes Labadee? as "Royal Caribbean's private paradise"

Here is a great site about Haiti.

Chirimoya · Jan 22, 2006

Ha, yes, Labadie. I spent an afternoon off there while working in northern Haiti- you can get in by paying a few dollars at the gate on days when there are no cruise ships calling. Once you're in there is nothing to indicate which country you're in. All signs are in English: 'Treasure Island', 'Native Market', etc.

MeDominican · Jan 22, 2006

Exactly

Chirimoya said:
Ha, yes, Labadie.... Once you're in there is nothing to indicate which country you're in. All signs are in English: 'Treasure Island', 'Native Market', etc.

Exactly! It is a private beach. I was there in 2003, while cruising on Royal Caribbean. I personally do not know of any cruise line that departs from the U.S.A., that actually goes to Haiti, other than this private beach. If someone else does, then please enlighten me.

MeDominican

drbill · Jan 22, 2006

Let's be fair- not all Americans are looking for the same thing in their travels. Nor are all Europeans, South Africans or Scientologists. If physical comfort, attractive surroundings, attentive service, extravagant food and beverage options are important to Fred, Mom and the kids, they may not be so important to Sociologist Sam, hunkered down in Capotillo with those elusive "real" people. Twenty-somethings traipsing through the mountain trails and mangrove lagoons, Winnepeg suburbanites bopping along Pedro Clisante to the pounding reggaeton and fumes of early-morning pina coladas, Italian insurance salesmen stalking (lurking) in Boca Chica, fear and loathing everywhere you look... OK, you get the idea, a mass of individuals looking for the things that please and satisfy them. Is it so strange that the folks with the big bucks would tend to demand more physical comfort and personal security on their vacation travels and that the spots catering to these requirements would become popular?
drbill

KateP · Jan 25, 2006

Just to add on to what's been said so far as to why people keep coming back to Punta Cana (from a local's point of view), it's important to mention the airport which is relatively close to almost all the hotels and within a short period will even been considered close to Uvero Alto because of the new highway. There's also a very wide variety of excursions to be offered, from horseback riding in the mountains to visiting some of the poorest people of the country, the sugarcane workers. It's just a question of what you prefer to see. You've also got resorts ranging from relatively cheap to 5 star VIP services.

Ok, Punta Cana doesn't have the variety of local attractions yet that some people might look for (ex. shopping mall), but let me tell you that more o less by this time next year, even that's going to be offered (I must say us locals are VERY happy about that).

As was mentioned in the beginning, 36 years ago Punta Cana was nothing. Not even a highway leading in. Now you look at it and all the hotels and resorts that have been built and you have to admit that if things keep going the way they are, within a few short years you'll pretty much be able to find whatever you want. Now is this what everyone wants? Of course not! But that's why there are so many tourist destinations in the world!

New Orleans/Punta Cana theory

New member

Economist by Profession

New member

Economist by Profession

DR1

Economist by Profession

DR1

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Bronze

Silver

New member

Silver

Well-known member

New member

New member

Silver