Why doesn't Chicago come across as touristy? (Phoenix, Atlanta: transplants, credit)

[Dport7674]

Chicago doesn't seem touristy and it might not be a destination spot for a lot of folks, but if a person likes to travel, Chicago is somwhere on their list of places to visit.

[It'sAutomatic]

I don't think Chicago is great for sight-seeing tourism. As a place to live, however, it's awesome.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

I don't think Chicago is great for sight-seeing tourism. As a place to live, however, it's awesome.

I guess it depends on what one is looking for in a vacation.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by ChiNaan

I have to agree with those who say Chicago is one of the major tourist cities in the U.S. If it doesn't "come across as touristy" to you, you haven't spent much time around the Museum campus / Grant Park / Millennium Park / Navy Pier / Magnificent Mile area. I often wish it were less touristy when I'm downtown.

It's true. I live downtown and actually mainly avoid these areas, especially the Mag Mile, because of the hoards of tourists. Tourists are a little weird sometimes, even if they are pumping money here. Some of them act as if they own the city.

[/quote]

[mas23]

Originally Posted by ChiNaan

Chicago has less media exposure than Miami? Huh?

Chicago has more media exposure than any other city in the U.S. except NYC, L.A., and D.C. Atlanta might be in the running simply because of CNN being headquartered there. That's about it.

Heck, I grew up 800 miles away from Chicago watching the Cubs on WGN. The only thing I knew about Miami was that the Golden Girls and Tubbs and Crocket lived there.

Well I'd say they're on the same level but, to me at least, I think Miami has been shown more on TV shows and Music videos etc.

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

I don't think Chicago is great for sight-seeing tourism. As a place to live, however, it's awesome.

Chicago in under-rated in sight seeing.

[Jandur]

Originally Posted by jwaiter

Maybe because I want to go somewhere I didn't go last year?

Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing

[oddstray]

Originally Posted by rca215

So how do you explain New York, Paris, London, Tokyo and most of the rest of the biggest tourist cities in the world that don't fit into either of your classifications?

Advertising. Chicago doesn't need tourist revenue since it's a working city. So it doesn't bother to advertise. The other cities probably don't need tourist revenue either, but you see all sorts of advertising for visiting them.

[rca215]

Originally Posted by oddstray

Advertising. Chicago doesn't need tourist revenue since it's a working city. So it doesn't bother to advertise. The other cities probably don't need tourist revenue either, but you see all sorts of advertising for visiting them.

I would tend to think that their rich histories, global importance and cultural impact weigh a bit more than advertising when it comes to tourism.

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by oddstray

Advertising. Chicago doesn't need tourist revenue since it's a working city. So it doesn't bother to advertise. The other cities probably don't need tourist revenue either, but you see all sorts of advertising for visiting them.

Um, tourism revenue pays for many, many of the services in this city. Look at the hotel taxes alone, etc. And look at how much city leaders fight for trade shows, etc.

More than 45 million domestic and international tourists visited Chicago in 2008 and spent $11.8 billion, according to the latest figures from the Travel Industry Assn. of America. Those visitors generated about $656 million in tax revenue for the city and state, and contributed to 132,000 local jobs.

For a city in heavy debt, thats hardly chump change.


Traditionally Chicago didnt advertise much, but that has changed as of late.

Chicago to open tourism offices in Brazil, Germany and Japan - Chicago Sun-Times

[Link N. Parker]

I will say this...I first visited Chicago 20 years ago...in 1992...to watch the Reds play the Cubs. I found myself at that game (as a "tourist") and LOVING the city...loving the people...loving the unique "energy" and vibe that this place has...and then when an opportunity opened up 6 years later, I moved there and never looked back.

When we were there that weekend, we rode the L, we went up and down Michigan ave, went to the Hancock lookout deck...and man it was awesome...and that area still to this day, has that tourist vibe and energy...but its a good energy. Although, I seem to remember Michigan ave having more "schlocky" knick-knack souvenir shops, at the time.

But, the tourist "scene" here is more about going there for the shopping, and looking at the architecture, high rises, the museums, Cubs games, etc. People from all over go there for that, but I do seem to think there is definitely a heavy midwest tourist crowd there. But yes you also get some tourism as a side effect from people going there for business, etc.