As this thread goes along, I'm reminded of the earlier comparison between
the impact of tourism on North American heritage districts vs. European
ones. It seems, upon comparison, that part of the problem here in North
America is that in many cases our heritage districts are fragile creatures,
limited in depth and breadth, artificially created and sustained, not a part
of the traditional economic mainstream. The irony is that, as an economic
and cultural entity, they are brand new. We have too little experience in
determining what they are, how they fit in, and how to achieve that elusive
balance between their native economy and a tourism-based one

In countries where the "heritage areas" have never lost their primary place
in the real economy of the city, and where no artificial means are required
for their sustenance, they have a robustness that better resists the
onslaught of heritage tourism. After all, they have survived far worse, such
as war, pestilence, inquisition.

An example: a friend of mine born in Germany who now lives in Whitehorse,
tells a story about her ancestral home back in the old country. Her family
has lived in the same house in an unbroken succession since Y1K, that's
right, over one thousand years. Incidentally, she is the first to have
broken that chain. I suppose it had to happen sooner or later. No wonder
European cities shrug off the influence of tourism.

Respects his elders.