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.
Pretty good list, except listing both Miami and San Diego is kind of redundant. Same with Orlando and Los Angeles.
All 4 receive a pretty large number of tourist each year. Heck, Orlando had the highest number of tourist in the nation until 09 when NYC surpassed it for the first time in 22yrs. Not to mention Orlando and LA are VERY different from each other.
All 4 receive a pretty large number of tourist each year. Heck, Orlando had the highest number of tourist in the nation until 09 when NYC surpassed it for the first time in 22yrs. Not to mention Orlando and LA are VERY different from each other.
This is true! All 4 cities have a large number of tourists. In one of the threads on this board, someone posted a list of most visited cities and Orlando, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Miami were high on the list.
All 4 receive a pretty large number of tourist each year. Heck, Orlando had the highest number of tourist in the nation until 09 when NYC surpassed it for the first time in 22yrs. Not to mention Orlando and LA are VERY different from each other.
According to the lastest forbes list released in april of this year, Orlando was still number 1.
All 4 receive a pretty large number of tourist each year. Heck, Orlando had the highest number of tourist in the nation until 09 when NYC surpassed it for the first time in 22yrs. Not to mention Orlando and LA are VERY different from each other.
I'm sure they all receive a lot of tourists. They're also on opposite sides of the country. I'm just saying there isn't anything major in Orlando that you won't find in greater LA.
My point wasn't that beach places were overrated; they are in fact probably underrated if you look at global tourism preferences. The same goes for cheap shopping, which is something Europeans associate closely with America but we take for granted. The ability to buy nice things at a much lower price than in Europe is something Americans don't normally consider when deciding where to go on vacation. This was a somewhat bigger deal a few years ago when a Euro was worth $1.60.
Places like New Orleans and Savannah, on the other hand, are probably a bit overrated by Americans. Europeans might check out these cities and say "19th century buildings, streetside boutiques and cafes, nothing special", whereas Americans eat that stuff up. Of course Americans like beaches too, but we have an overactive appreciation of cutesy, historical places in comparison to other nationalities. And the fact that these aren't good places to buy designer handbags never even enters an American's mind.
Also, the word "stereotype" was not used without reason. This whole thread is generalizing what people like to do for vacation. Go to the Costa del Sol in Spain or southern France and you'll see a ridiculous number of British tourists relaxing on the beach. But the volume of tourism at American beaches just reinforces Americans not thinking going to a beach is very special--it's something many people can afford to do multiple times a year because we have tons of beaches--as other posters said, you don't even have to leave the state of New Jersey to go to a beach! Europeans have a much harder time getting out to warm beaches, so the concept of a place like Miami--a nice, beautiful, modern city by the beach, with cheap shopping to boot, is pretty much the ideal destination for Europeans. Hence the ridiculous number of Europeans who visit that particular city.
In sum, cities like Miami are easy to underrate. Their amenities are somewhat commonplace to Americans, but for Europeans they are really something special. The fact that many people have excluded Miami from their lists is just crazy.
regardless, it was hit by the hurricane. and therefore, it is not much larger than miami. and it is therefore much less influential.
what do you mean it was a major city because of the hurricane? that makes no sense. so because a hurricane hit it, it became a major city?
also, galveston was not a major city before the hurricane. miami is 7x the size of it and has always been significantly larger. galveston would never have been the size of miami regardless of whether or not the hurricane had hit it. also, miami has 1 million more tons of cargo being shipped every year which means miami's port is more important.
finally, the hurricane that hit galveston was in 1900, causing $99.4 billion worth of damage. a hurricane that hit miami in 1924 inflicted $157 billion worth of damage, the costliest hurricane in history.
and miami recovered from that and is now a much more influential, and more cosmopolitan city. so the fact that there was a hurricane has nothing to do with the development that could/should've happened.
its status makes it a more desireable location for both domestic and international tourists.
next time you wanna call some silly, try verifying your claims with facts first.
Not to mention the water and the beach in Galveston is BROWN, Miami is the most similar to the Caribbeans (just to give you some background, the poster said that Bahamas is not a great toursit destination in another thread)
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.
