Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder if the Phoenix Zoo would be 4* if it were in San Diego.
A lot of attractions have more tourist "value" simply because they are in or near world class cities. And NYC and LA are world class 5* cities. Phoenix will never be a 5* global city/metro area.
Its subjective but most people would rate San Diego Zoo as 4* while Phoenix Zoo is 2*. But if we literally swapped zoos would San Diego (ignore space availability issues for now), would the x-Phoenix Zoo (now located in SD) become 4* while the x-San Diego zoo (now located in PHX) become 2*?
The Tucson rodeo. The first La Fiesta de los Vaqueros (Celebration of the Cowboys) in 1925 touted three days of events and competition. Today, the event has grown to a nine-day celebration centered on the Tucson Rodeo, one of the top 25 professional rodeos in North America. Tucson Rodeo
Location: The edge of the world and all of Western civilization
984 posts, read 1,192,249 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonoranrat
I wonder if the Phoenix Zoo would be 4* if it were in San Diego.
A lot of attractions have more tourist "value" simply because they are in or near world class cities. And NYC and LA are world class 5* cities. Phoenix will never be a 5* global city/metro area.
Its subjective but most people would rate San Diego Zoo as 4* while Phoenix Zoo is 2*. But if we literally swapped zoos would San Diego (ignore space availability issues for now), would the x-Phoenix Zoo (now located in SD) become 4* while the x-San Diego zoo (now located in PHX) become 2*?
No to your logic. The San Diego reports over 3,700 animals while Phoenix about 1,400. The San Diego Zoo also houses 650 distinct species (according to their website), many more than the Phoenix Zoo does. All in all the San Diego Zoo is just more comprehensive.
And another no to global tourism rating, as San Diego isn't quite a global destination. You'll find most tourists there to be Americans, just as you will in Phoenix, though I think San Diego has a hair more foreign tourists than Phoenix does. In this general region, both cities are pretty much in the Los Angeles-Las Vegas shadow, as both those cities are more renowned globally and attract the bulk of foreign tourists. San Diego at least has a proximity advantage being close to LA in that it could get spillover for extended stays, whereas Phoenix is significantly more inconvenient (farther and not easy to get to without a car). Los Angeles has much, much more to offer foreign tourists than Phoenix does, and for long stays, San Diego will reap more benefits than Phoenix will because they too offer more to see for tourists than Phoenix.
What about Biosphere between Catalina and Oracle? Maybe a 3 star?
I would definitely rate it a 3* attraction. For it to be a 2* attraction would mean it mainly serves as a attraction in the Tucson area which is obviously not the case. A lot of the visitors are clearly NOT "locals" and people do travel there from Phoenix or California to see it all the time.
But I don't think it is a 4* continental class attraction (and definitely not a 5* world class attraction) either. I don't think people from all over the country visit it as a primary attraction. To the extent that people visit it from all over the country or world, it is down on the list on an extended stay.
Okay here is my rating system for tourist attractions:
5 star - World Class
People travel from all over the world and make this a primary attraction to visit. For AZ, the obvious one is the Grand Canyon.
4 star - Continental Class
People travel continental distances (requires multi-hour plane ride) to visit it. A notch below world class. Honestly trying to think if AZ has any 4 star attractions. Maybe Sedona?
3 star - Regional Class
People travel from across a "region" (like within medium sized US states or medium size European countries like Germany) to visit it and are willing to drive a few hours or even a short plane ride to see it. London Bridge in Lake Havasupai? Is Phoenix Art Museum a good example? What about Phoenix Zoo or Sonora Desert Museum?
2 star - Municipal Class
This is an attraction that mainly serves people within a metropolitan area. I could maybe see the occasional family driving from Tucson to Phoenix to see something like the AZ Museum of Natural History in Mesa.
1 star - Barely an attraction
Almost no one would ever visit this attraction except if you are a resident or long-term visitor. No one would drive more than 1-1.5 hours just to visit it. Children's Museum in Phoenix?
What are the top 3, 4 or 5 star tourist attractions of AZ?
Grand Canyon, Sedona, and Monument Valley would be 4 or 5 star attractions. There are also parts of SE Arizona that have unique attractions like Tombstone, Bisbee, and the Chiricahua Mountains which might barely be rated 4 star, but more likely 3 star due to their remote locations ... although these are some of my favorite areas in AZ to visit. I personally find them more enjoyable than the Grand Canyon & Sedona, which tend to be overly touristy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvxhd
And another no to global tourism rating, as San Diego isn't quite a global destination. You'll find most tourists there to be Americans, just as you will in Phoenix, though I think San Diego has a hair more foreign tourists than Phoenix does. In this general region, both cities are pretty much in the Los Angeles-Las Vegas shadow, as both those cities are more renowned globally and attract the bulk of foreign tourists. San Diego at least has a proximity advantage being close to LA in that it could get spillover for extended stays, whereas Phoenix is significantly more inconvenient (farther and not easy to get to without a car). Los Angeles has much, much more to offer foreign tourists than Phoenix does, and for long stays, San Diego will reap more benefits than Phoenix will because they too offer more to see for tourists than Phoenix.
If San Diego and Phoenix are in the shadows of L.A. and Las Vegas, it's because they've allowed themselves to be. In a way, I can see why San Diego is in the shadow of Los Angeles (being less than 100 miles away), but Phoenix is really in nobody's shadow. We're well over 300 miles away from L.A., and over 200 miles from Vegas. Phoenix is also the second largest city in the western U.S., and it should behave like it.
Even with San Diego being in the L.A. shadow, they still attract a LOT of tourists: many of whom are Arizonans, especially during the summer months. On the other hand, Arizona has allowed itself to have so much tourist money divert to the L.A. area largely for the theme parks, and to Vegas for the nightlife, casinos, and shows. I think it's pathetic when commercials on Phoenix radio stations advertise attractions in southern CA & Vegas when Phoenix could easily have some big time attractions (theme parks, etc.) that attract tourists from around the nation & the world.
Last edited by Valley Native; 01-15-2017 at 03:33 PM..
Location: The edge of the world and all of Western civilization
984 posts, read 1,192,249 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
If San Diego and Phoenix are in the shadows of L.A. and Las Vegas, it's because they've allowed themselves to be. In a way, I can see why San Diego is in the shadow of Los Angeles (being less than 100 miles away), but Phoenix is really in nobody's shadow. We're well over 300 miles away from L.A., and over 200 miles from Vegas. Phoenix is also the second largest city in the western U.S., and it should behave like it.
Even with San Diego being in the L.A. shadow, they still attract a LOT of tourists: many of whom are Arizonans, especially during the summer months. On the other hand, Arizona has allowed itself to have so much tourist money divert to the L.A. area largely for the theme parks, and to Vegas for the nightlife, casinos, and shows. I think it's pathetic when commercials on Phoenix radio stations advertise attractions in southern CA & Vegas when Phoenix could easily have some big time attractions (theme parks, etc.) that attract tourists from around the nation & the world.
Yes, that's exactly the case. I've stated on this forum before that Arizona won't invest in marketing itself, because that would cost tax money to do regardless of any ROI. For instance, France has recently stepped up tourism marketing spending by investing an additional 10 million euros into it. Tourism also brings in roughly 36 billion euros into that country, which is a pretty nice ROI, and supplies their people with additional revenue and jobs. The mindset in Arizona is to not create more government spending, even if it brings in more jobs and revenue. For the life of me I cannot figure out why this makes no sense to the local population. Phoenix is going to continue to attract mostly American, Canadian and Mexican tourists because it's more familiar to them than someone from overseas.
Phoenix certainly is in those two cities' shadows if you look at it regionally. Let's say a German tourist wants to spend 3 weeks in the Western US. He'll most likely be more familiar with LA and Vegas, so he'll probably gravitate toward those two cities. Both have quite a bit to do, so he'll probably dedicate quite a bit of time to them. He wants to see a few other things while here, so because San Diego is close to LA, he may afford it a couple days, and the Grand Canyon is easily accessible from Vegas and he'll likely give that a few days too. Now that he's dedicated time to what he wants to see, what's the incentive to spend the time and money to get to Phoenix? It likely won't even register with him, much like Stuttgart wouldn't register with most Americans going to Germany. On top of that, Phoenix really isn't on the way to anything from LA either.
I mostly disagree with the theme park thing, because no one seems to grasp that those hours coincide with summer breaks. And as you wrote, Phoenix is somewhat isolated. Large theme parks rely on summer breaks from school, a steady flow of tourists and/or a large market. That's why Orlando and LA theme parks can stay open year-round, but Six Flags in Dallas closes until the summer. Phoenix has a definite off-season, and unfortunately for local theme park enthusiasts it's at a time which is going to make it hard for a large park to open up.
I can't stress it enough: without spending money on a marketing campaign, Arizona will lose out on tourists. If people want that benefit, they're going to have to suck it up and allow tax dollars to go to one. I understand there's already a state tourism department, but they're clearly not doing a very good job, and it's mostly because they aren't being funded adequately, as you can read in the link below. You hear those ads for Southern California and Vegas for a very good reason. Think of major names like Coca-Cola and McDonald's, which you see advertisements for even though you see them frequently as it is. They spend money on advertising to remind you that they're there, hence why those other cities are advertising here. They know Phoenix is a good market for people wanting to get away, so they advertise here. People think these government offices are always over-funded, but an advertising campaign is expensive.
Yes, that's exactly the case. I've stated on this forum before that Arizona won't invest in marketing itself, because that would cost tax money to do regardless of any ROI. For instance, France has recently stepped up tourism marketing spending by investing an additional 10 million euros into it. Tourism also brings in roughly 36 billion euros into that country, which is a pretty nice ROI, and supplies their people with additional revenue and jobs. The mindset in Arizona is to not create more government spending, even if it brings in more jobs and revenue. For the life of me I cannot figure out why this makes no sense to the local population. Phoenix is going to continue to attract mostly American, Canadian and Mexican tourists because it's more familiar to them than someone from overseas.
Not sure why tax money would need to be spent on tourism when it's a free enterprise type of business. Besides, amenities like theme parks and most other attractions are built with private capital. All the casinos and mega resorts along the Vegas Strip weren't funded by the state of Nevada or the city of Las Vegas. Hell, the Vegas Strip itself isn't even in the city limits ... it's on unincorporated land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvxhd
Phoenix certainly is in those two cities' shadows if you look at it regionally. Let's say a German tourist wants to spend 3 weeks in the Western US. He'll most likely be more familiar with LA and Vegas, so he'll probably gravitate toward those two cities. Both have quite a bit to do, so he'll probably dedicate quite a bit of time to them. He wants to see a few other things while here, so because San Diego is close to LA, he may afford it a couple days, and the Grand Canyon is easily accessible from Vegas and he'll likely give that a few days too. Now that he's dedicated time to what he wants to see, what's the incentive to spend the time and money to get to Phoenix? It likely won't even register with him, much like Stuttgart wouldn't register with most Americans going to Germany. On top of that, Phoenix really isn't on the way to anything from LA either.
Well again, that's because Phoenix has allowed itself to be in the shadows when it comes to tourism dollars ... and as a result, we're constantly losing those dollars to places like CA & Vegas. If you look at New York City (which as we all know is a primary destination for tourists), you could say some of the other large eastern cities are in NYC's shadow, such as Philadelphia, Boston, and DC. However, they all attract a good share of tourists, and why do you suppose that is? It's because those other cities have attractions that are worth seeing. Phoenix could easily have tourist attractions such as theme parks, better museums, or even something like an iconic observation tower downtown (like the Space Needle or Stratosphere). The points of pride we boast about, such as Camelback Mountain & the Heard Museum, are obviously not strong enough attractions to bring in the international tourism dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvxhd
I mostly disagree with the theme park thing, because no one seems to grasp that those hours coincide with summer breaks. And as you wrote, Phoenix is somewhat isolated. Large theme parks rely on summer breaks from school, a steady flow of tourists and/or a large market. That's why Orlando and LA theme parks can stay open year-round, but Six Flags in Dallas closes until the summer. Phoenix has a definite off-season, and unfortunately for local theme park enthusiasts it's at a time which is going to make it hard for a large park to open up.
I highly disagree with this notion about how Phoenix can't be a summer theme park destination because it's the "off season" (due to the hot weather). The irony is that many of the same people who say that Phoenix can't have theme parks because it's too hot in the summer are the same ones who claim that the summer temperatures are very tolerable because it's mostly a dry heat. Sorry, but it can't be both ways!
Again, look at Vegas which has nearly the same kind of summer weather as Phoenix, and they still attract lots of visitors who seem to have no problem walking up & down the Strip even in the middle of July. Orlando may not be 110 degrees nearly every day in the summer like it is in Phoenix or Vegas, but it's a very humid heat which can feel worse than our dry heat. Even if the heat is a factor, what would be wrong with having INDOOR theme parks? Dubai has an indoor ski resort, which I'm pretty sure doesn't shut down during their immensely hot summers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvxhd
I can't stress it enough: without spending money on a marketing campaign, Arizona will lose out on tourists. If people want that benefit, they're going to have to suck it up and allow tax dollars to go to one. I understand there's already a state tourism department, but they're clearly not doing a very good job, and it's mostly because they aren't being funded adequately, as you can read in the link below. You hear those ads for Southern California and Vegas for a very good reason. Think of major names like Coca-Cola and McDonald's, which you see advertisements for even though you see them frequently as it is. They spend money on advertising to remind you that they're there, hence why those other cities are advertising here. They know Phoenix is a good market for people wanting to get away, so they advertise here. People think these government offices are always over-funded, but an advertising campaign is expensive.
We're going to have to suck it up, but not in the sense of paying more taxes. The way we need to suck it up is to quit caving in to all these stupid NIMBYs and naysayers who have a defeated attitude about bringing in more amenities. Arizona can & should be a primary destination for tourism thanks to our many natural wonders ... however, natural scenery shouldn't be the only thing people come here for, especially when the nation's sixth largest city is constantly being passed over. Phoenix is going to have to grow up and strive to become more competitive with southern CA & Las Vegas ... otherwise, we're going to keep losing tourist money regardless of how many tax dollars are spent. At the very least, I'd simply like to hear less advertising for all star IHeart concerts in Vegas, or theme parks in southern CA.
Location: The edge of the world and all of Western civilization
984 posts, read 1,192,249 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
Not sure why tax money would need to be spent on tourism when it's a free enterprise type of business. Besides, amenities like theme parks and most other attractions are built with private capital. All the casinos and mega resorts along the Vegas Strip weren't funded by the state of Nevada or the city of Las Vegas. Hell, the Vegas Strip itself isn't even in the city limits ... it's on unincorporated land.
Thank you, for proving my point. That attitude is precisely why Arizona is lagging on the global scale. It's typically the norm for regional tourism promotion organizations to be tax-funded, or at least part of a public-private venture. Now, how exactly are Phoenix-area hotels and amenities to launch tourism campaigns to wealthy areas of Europe and Asia when people there couldn't care less about Phoenix when they know nothing about it? Why would someone fly 5,000+ miles just to play golf at some random course or stay at one particular hotel? That makes absolutely no sense. There needs to be something to see for them to come this far, which leads me to the next point. Your Vegas example makes no sense either when the city is using the Paradise-based hotels in tandem with promoting places like Fremont Street. You don't see places like the Luxor or MGM advertising overseas because it's expensive to buy ad space and they'd be inadvertently selling Vegas more than themselves, which is to say that other hotels with cheaper rates may reap the benefits on a competitor's dime. You'll see hotels advertise in Phoenix, but it's also much closer and chances of landing sales are greater here than if they were to launch a campaign in Berlin or Paris. It's like Phoenix using Scottsdale or Wickenburg in addition to what the City of Phoenix has (hotels, golf courses, shopping, nightlife, attractions, etc.) in order to appeal to would-be tourists while also gaining some tourist dollars. Get it now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
Well again, that's because Phoenix has allowed itself to be in the shadows when it comes to tourism dollars ... and as a result, we're constantly losing those dollars to places like CA & Vegas. If you look at New York City (which as we all know is a primary destination for tourists), you could say some of the other large eastern cities are in NYC's shadow, such as Philadelphia, Boston, and DC. However, they all attract a good share of tourists, and why do you suppose that is? It's because those other cities have attractions that are worth seeing. Phoenix could easily have tourist attractions such as theme parks, better museums, or even something like an iconic observation tower downtown (like the Space Needle or Stratosphere). The points of pride we boast about, such as Camelback Mountain & the Heard Museum, are obviously not strong enough attractions to bring in the international tourism dollars.
Okay, and? Phoenix allows (present tense) itself to be in the shadows because, frankly, it's a deadbeat city. If it requires ambition and hard work, no one in this town is interested. In a sense, nothing much has changed since the Old West days in that the spirit here is get-rich-quick without exerting any effort, and every year people are suckered into moving here for that. To forge its place in the world, Phoenix is going to have to buckle down and do some dirty work, but I have zero faith in this place to do that. You're still missing the point that those cities invest more in advertising themselves, and Phoenix just won't do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
I highly disagree with this notion about how Phoenix can't be a summer theme park destination because it's the "off season" (due to the hot weather). The irony is that many of the same people who say that Phoenix can't have theme parks because it's too hot in the summer are the same ones who claim that the summer temperatures are very tolerable because it's mostly a dry heat. Sorry, but it can't be both ways!
Disagree all you want. Where's this theme park people are clamoring over? I thought you were in the mindset that theme parks are private, for-profit entities that will follow the dollar. Surely if they could do it they would have by now, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
Again, look at Vegas which has nearly the same kind of summer weather as Phoenix, and they still attract lots of visitors who seem to have no problem walking up & down the Strip. Orlando may not be 110 degrees nearly every day in the summer like it is in Phoenix or Vegas, but it's a very humid heat which can feel worse than our dry heat. Even if the heat is a factor, what would be wrong with having INDOOR theme parks? Dubai has an indoor ski resort, which I'm pretty sure doesn't shut down during their immensely hot summers.
You're straying from your own points and doing yourself a disservice. Vegas invests in itself more and is more willing to spend money to bring tourists in than Phoenix is. Why do hotels charge less in the summer here compared to those cities? Why are tourist amenities cheaper in the summer than those cities? Why do they have sustained, perennial tourism when Phoenix has a on-/off-peak seasons? And why don't you write a check to build a theme park you're so sure will succeed here? Like it or not, without self-promotion, this isn't going to change in Phoenix and it's going to take money, dedication, hard work and time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
We're going to have to suck it up, but not in the sense of paying more taxes. The way we need to suck it up is to quit caving in to all these stupid NIMBYs and naysayers who have a defeated attitude about bringing in more amenities. Arizona can & should be a primary destination for tourism thanks to our many natural wonders ... however, natural scenery shouldn't be the only thing people come here for, especially when the nation's sixth largest city is constantly being passed over. Phoenix is going to have to grow up and strive to become more competitive with southern CA & Las Vegas ... otherwise, we're going to keep losing tourist money regardless of how many tax dollars are spent. At the very least, I'd simply like to hear less advertising for all star IHeart concerts in Vegas, or theme parks in southern CA.
There is natural beauty all over Earth as in Ha Long Bay, Tsingy de Bemaraha, Table Mountain, etc. I'm sure you've heard of all of those because you're constantly bombarded with images Vietnam, Madagascar and South Africa promote non-stop. Similarly, Phoenix also has to compete with those other large cities around the world tourists flock to, such as Surabaya (9 million), Belo Horizonte (5.9 million), and Kinshasa (5.5 million). Size does matter after all as, like the natural areas, these cities aren't at all obscure and are probably as recognizable as Paris or New York because of how well they promote themselves globally. I'm sure if you could leave today you'd have a list ready of what you must see in any of them.
If the world doesn't know Phoenix exists, the world will continue to pass Phoenix by. It's that simple.
Okay here is my rating system for tourist attractions:
5 star - World Class
People travel from all over the world and make this a primary attraction to visit. For AZ, the obvious one is the Grand Canyon.
4 star - Continental Class
People travel continental distances (requires multi-hour plane ride) to visit it. A notch below world class. Honestly trying to think if AZ has any 4 star attractions. Maybe Sedona?
3 star - Regional Class
People travel from across a "region" (like within medium sized US states or medium size European countries like Germany) to visit it and are willing to drive a few hours or even a short plane ride to see it. London Bridge in Lake Havasupai? Is Phoenix Art Museum a good example? What about Phoenix Zoo or Sonora Desert Museum?
2 star - Municipal Class
This is an attraction that mainly serves people within a metropolitan area. I could maybe see the occasional family driving from Tucson to Phoenix to see something like the AZ Museum of Natural History in Mesa.
1 star - Barely an attraction
Almost no one would ever visit this attraction except if you are a resident or long-term visitor. No one would drive more than 1-1.5 hours just to visit it. Children's Museum in Phoenix?
What are the top 3, 4 or 5 star tourist attractions of AZ?
Someone mentioned The Wave, and by this definition it would rate as a five-star. People would fly from Europe to see The Wave and certainly wait times are longer than the Grand Canyon. The Wave sits in a fragile environment and management wants to keep it safe from vandals. The Wave is great if that's what you're looking for. But, really very few visitors overall. It deserves a special class.
Antelope Canyon might be another case. Photographers would travel from anywhere to be there on the certain day when the sun shines down the canyon to illuminate parts of the rock walls in a certain way.
Few people ever get to Keet Seel Ruin at Navajo National Monument. Getting there requires a Navajo guide. For people into archaeology a visit is worth a five.
Then there is Sycamore Canyon. When locals decided to build in Sedona (now a 5) there was an offsetting move to keep Sycamore Canyon for the wilderness. Today, access is poor and visitors few, but many who see Sycamore Canyon say it compares favorably to Sedona and Oak Creek Canyon. As is, it might not rate as an attraction at all.
Monument Valley, Canyon de Chelly, and Lake Powell are definite fours. Flagstaff has several attractions that might be a 3 taken separately (Sunset Crater, Walnut Canyon, Wupatki, Snow Bowl, and Lockett Meadow in fall) but the multiple attractions add up to a 4 when taken together.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
World Class Attractions
