Real versus contrived places

In Titanic Belfast – it didn’t rock my boat travel writer Catherine Mack contrasts beautiful, “real
breathing spaces [that] are part of our living heritage”, with a designed (or contrived) visitor attraction built on tragedy and destination marketing thought:

Reading her piece had me balancing the following:

• investment in the places to date
• investment needed to maintain the differing attractions (thereby benefiting the communities most closely involved)
• the cost to the visitor of visiting (“entrance fee”)
• enjoyment and illumination
• underlying motives–which do we really want to be sustained three or four generations from now?

It’s a close-to-the-heart piece, so perhaps the most pertinent question is…  Which of the places she throws into contrast are most likely to fill locals–and maybe even visitors–with pride?