I wonder if my comment would count because I'm a local to Las Vegas, so obviously anything I say would be inauthentic, murr murr

I don't understand the point of this. Las Vegas is a city and no one actually thinks that Paris Hotel is really Paris. Maybe the full video is more insightful but all I see is a person stating the obvious and if you don't think Vegas is fun then you yourself are not fun

Hello Captain obvious. Can you direct me to news worthy.

Oh course real people live there and have real lives. I think she's referring more to the tourist aspect of Las Vegas, which revolves around creating glitzy, plastic environments in order to draw people into the casinos. Las Vegas is fun if all you want to do is spend money.

Isn't the disorientation part of the appeal?  The consumption and confusion basically make you drunk.  That's why Las Vegas is fun.

I am really offended by this arrogant attitude, which I heard throughout my time at ASA. When I revealed, for example, that I had been to Las Vegas before, I was looked at like I was crazy by other sociologists. 

What bothers me most is how this condescending attitude toward Vegas is really an expression of the class/status elitism of many sociologists. While I was in Vegas this past weekend for ASA, I decided to - God forbid - venture out beyond Ceasar's, where the ASA was being held. I ended up going to Excalibur for a show, and grabbed something to eat at their $20 buffet. More like Country Buffet or Golden Corral than the snooty restaurants of Ceasar's, the entire buffet at Excalibur was full of families who clearly didn't have as much money as the typical sociology crowd but were having quite a good time chowing down on their fried chicken, chow mein and macaroni salad. The irony of it really was that many sociologists - from their ivory tower in Ceasar's - really thought they understood the "grittiness" of Las Vegas because someone handed them a card for a strip show as they were crossing the street. They totally missed the point of Vegas - and how people create their own piece of authenticity in it, even amid an atmosphere that everyone knows is FAKE, INAUTHENTIC, RIDICULOUS and...THEREFORE fun. Obviously, not everything in Vegas is good ole fashioned family fun - there's lots of things to be disturbed about in the city. But to reduce Las Vegas to a view from Ceasar's palace is...inadequate to say the least.

My parents when to Las Vagas a few months ago and had a great time without gambling away there retirement fund. They got suckered into a timeshare seminar, but got a good deal on tickets to the Cirque Du Soleil's show they wanted to see out of it. The sociologist  didn't mention they fact that there are trips to the Hoover Dam that take Vagas tourist by the bus load to see the new world wonder. Seems pretty closed minded.

My dad did comment on how many older women there were in Las Vagas that had boob jobs and face lifts. There are women like that everywhere in the US, but I guess they are proud of it in Las Vagas.

Summary: People may think they are having fun here, but they are wrong. 

I think there may be a good critique made about a city built on gambling, but (leaving aside that I think some of Zukin's comments are mischaracterizations/ overgeneralizations) I think many of the things talked about simply make Vegas a typical (modern?) city rather than "not a real city."

Whoa...yeah.  I don't like Vegas, but it's more of a constant unease that you get from being in a place where nothing is "really real" in the sense that it's all meant to look like something else.  I get the same feeling from DisneyWorld.  My dislike is based on my own discomfort, and not on my interpretation of the experiences of others.  That notion of judging a place based on what you think other people think about it?  That's a bit odd, to me.

 These comments show a real lack of personal imagination and, more importantly, professional integrity. The video (and shame on Norton for producing and posting it) confirms two things : 1) Zukin's work is ideologically-driven and suspect, and 2) good sociologists understand that, as Peter Berger wrote in the early 60s, sociology is a form of consciousness that helps us see the reality beyond the facade. Zukin, who should know better, sees the facade as reality which thereby permits her to make superficial claims about the superficial. Thank you, though, for reaffirming the significance of my study of people-watching on the Las Vegas Strip, which I conducted over the course of two years rather than, say, a weekend. 

I don't think I've been anywhere, -ever-, that
draws a broader cross-section of people, along every demographic axis, than Las Vegas.
That alone endears it to me as a vacation destination.

It's absolutely true that the environment is constructed to separate you
from your money as efficiently as possible. However, it's not only possible,
it's actually pretty easy to resist. There are tons of
inexpensive restaurants, hotel rooms there are relatively affordable, and
there's so much free *spectacle*.

And while it's true you need to walk around to get the full effect of the
spectacle, it's -not- true that there's nowhere to sit for free -- there are
benches indoors and out. (I can't quite figure out where she's going with that criticism -- does she mean there aren't any parks? I will grant that the strip area doesn't feature as much green space as comparable cities -- but it's the *desert*; creating green space in Vegas is not a great use of resources.)

Not to mention, a destination in America that actually encourages people to
get up and walk? Is not a bad thing.

This is fly-by sociology at its worst. Zukin has managed to pack a book's worth of elitism and overgeneralization into a minute and forty-four seconds. Kudos for that, I guess. I've lived in Las Vegas for a couple years now, and I'm not going to say it's without it's problems. However, I will say that you can't begin to understand Las Vegas as a city or as a cultural symbol after staying four days in a conference hotel. Zukin is doing a disservice to all the people who live, work, create, and genuinely enjoy themselves here--because yes, Las Vegas IS genuinely fun. If ever I get to the point when I can't enjoy breakfast buffets, swimming pools, and Elvis impersonators, I'm going to have to reevaluate some of my life choices.

As a sociologist from UNLV who attended this conference, helped to organize one session's reception and served as the Local Arrangements Coordinator for SSSP, I am deeply offended and irritated by Zukin's video. I am also curious why Norton reps did not ask our urban sociologists (Michael Borer, Robert Futrell, David Dickens and others to comment on Las Vegas as a city) or why Norton did not send a rep to one of our several Spotlight on the City sessions. (I didn't see Zukin there either, BTW). If you really want to learn about a city, you have to talk with the people who live, work and play here, not someone who spent three days couped up in a massive hotel. Here are just two comments from Facebook friends who listened to Zukin's video:

Ashley: "Not sure where to even start. I didn't know she could speak for the 30 million annual visitors who "think" they are having fun but actually aren't. How exactly is one unable to "escape"... there are cars, buses, taxis, airplanes or what I like to call the 10 and 2, 10 toes, 2 feet. I'm trying to think of a place where you aren't spending money everytime you step out the door, be it spending gas driving, eating at a restaurant, or ever 'spending' time on a hike. Everything has a price. No interaction? Gazing? Where was she, the strip club? What exactly is her definition of a city is the real question. Last I checked, getting dressed for a nice night out, being able to spend money in various places, gazing at something unique no one else has to offer, people running around enjoying themselves fit the definition among other things."

Derrick: "This seems extremely narrow minded for a sociologist. I would think she would be more interested in observing the behavior rather than judge it or assume they are being bamboozled into spending money they don't want to spend. It's condescending and shows an alarming inability to think outside of her own opinion. She is also failing to comprehend that her opinion is a minority opinion as evident by the amount of tourists who return year after year. People, in general, like to gamble, eat and drink in excess. Vegas provides a avenue for the everyday person to do this. This is nothing new to society, people have been doing this in societies around the world forever.Also, she is only commenting on one part of the city. If I went to San Deigo and never left the Gas Lamp district, I wouldnt even know they had beaches."

I also have a problem with this false consciousness type of argument which I find really condescending: "they THINK they are having fun but REALLY they are being tricked into spending money." Um... first of all, these things are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, this angle is so uninteresting. So much has been written about the simulated nature of these kinds of environments, we all get that. Why instead don't we ask instead about the actual experiences of people (including the pleasure they derive from participating in Vegas culture), given its hyperreal nature. People's experiences will be much more diverse and interesting than a simple explanation of ignorant consumerism. 

Those hotels you stayed at are what some refer to as "businesses."  This may come as a shock, but their goal is to generate revenue... GASP!   

I have been tricked so many times into spending my money at other vacation destinations and never realized it.    Those beer stands at Petco Park as you find your way to your seat, they just want you to buy beer..  The audacity!   Where is the water fountain and free seats?   Never again! 

Thank you for opening my eyes, I never knew I really wasn't having fun and making my own choices.    

What a shallow, unimaginative criticism.  Las Vegas is about dopamine, not about spending money and schlepping around.  It's one thing if Las Vegas is not to Professor Zukin's taste, but she should be able to understand that people actually do enjoy Las Vegas for many reasons.

How condescending.  Is the Las Vegas version of fun relatively shallow?  Sure is.  Does that mean it's not fun?  NO.  People, even very intelligent people, are allowed to have fun by taking risks, dressing up, and drinking the night away if they so choose.  Also, this idea that spending money is the antithesis of fun?  Where, please point me WHERE, can you sit down at a restaurant or bar and not spend money?  I don't know, but if you know where I can get a free meal and drinks, sign me up.  Until then, I still have fun if the food and drinks that other people made for me cost money.  The attitude she's talking about isn't exclusive to Vegas either.  People go out looking at each other to see what's trendy?  Oh, that NEVER happens in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Houston.  It CERTAINLY doesn't happen in every college town ever.  If that makes a city fake, point me somewhere authentic.  

Plus, Las Vegas isn't just a bunch of gimmicky hotels and strip clubs thrown out in the desert; I wonder how people who live in that city feel about your utter disdain for the whole city based on the Disneyland version.

Her video is the embodiment of elitist narcissism.

She lost me with her opening statement, "I hate Las Vegas." That comment made this analysis personal, not academic. Shame on Norton for even recording it. If she personally dislikes the city, fine say that when the camera is off, but give your audience an erudite thought, not your some half-baked opinion.

Its very difficult to judge someone on a two minute clip, she was being asked her opinion on Las Vegas at no stage did she say she was speaking for every sociologist who attended the conference.

I have never been to Vegas so I do not really have much to contribute here, it does have extremely high suicide rates in comparison with the rest of the US which I think I think is relevant to this discussion.

Then you might ask what a city is. I recently went on vacation in Crete, where part of the coastline seems to ssutain itself mainly on tourism, and a friend of mine went to Houston, saying that she didn't like it because it felt too calculated, "not a real city". We seem to have this idea of a city being formed after the old model, a small settlement growing and adding new industries and facilities as the needs gets voiced and time goes by. But obviously peopel are living their lives in cities or communities that don't fit into this mold, like Las Vegas, Houston and communities lika Agia Marina. It really looks like an arbitrary way of ranknig ways of building a community.

Congratulations Prof. zukin, for not actually letting "sheeple" come out of your mouth for an entire 1:42.....

I went to Las Vegas and it was fun, but it was a lot more artificial-appearing then I had imagined. There is The Strip, which is kind of hokey and artificial as could be expected, but beyond that there didn't appear to be much going on. It almost seemed like a huge resort in the middle of a small town in the desert versus a major city of the United States. Like someone mentioned, it is like Disney World for adults, though when I went, there were probably as many kids there as adults!