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.
Which cities have their touristy areas actually be more residential/neighborhood areas than tourist areas?
For instance, in Chicago, most tourists when they visit the city just stay in the Loop. Most never experience Lincoln Park, Wicker, Park, Pilsen, etc. The tourist attractions are primarily in an area that is more catering to tourists than residents, ie. the Loop/Downtown. So I would not consider Chicago to be one.
Another prime example of cities that are not would be Las Vegas, Washington D.C. (most people stick to the Mall), L.A., etc.
I would consider Boston to be one. The main tourists areas in Boston are pretty much neighborhoods that cater more to the residents than to the tourists. For instance tourists go in droves to the North End, Beacon Hill, Cambridge ( I am aware it's not a neighborhood), etc. Cities like Savannah and Charleston, I am sure are like that.
I think NYC is sort of both because of Manhattan's size and because so many people live in Manhattan, it is still the tourist area of NYC but it is still also a very residential/neighborhood type of area. Very few of your average tourists venture out to the other boroughs, excet for us urbanites
Chinatown, North Beach, Castro, Nob Hill, Telegraph Hill, Russian Hill, Haight-Ashbury etc. All distinct neighborhoods that are very popular tourist hangouts.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,877,648 times
Reputation: 2501
Minneapolis may be one....the "Chain of Lakes" is not downtown and is usually a big draw for anyone visiting the area. Bigger than Downtown anyways. Otherwise, it's the Mall of America.
Which cities have their touristy areas actually be more residential/neighborhood areas than tourist areas?
For instance, in Chicago, most tourists when they visit the city just stay in the Loop. Most never experience Lincoln Park, Wicker, Park, Pilsen, etc. The tourist attractions are primarily in an area that is more catering to tourists than residents, ie. the Loop/Downtown. So I would not consider Chicago to be one.
Another prime example of cities that are not would be Las Vegas, Washington D.C. (most people stick to the Mall), L.A., etc.
Most tourists to L.A. don't stay downtown, or even go downtown. They are going to Disneyland, Universal Studios, the beaches, etc. So I don't know why you would lump L.A. in with those other cities. L.A. is EXACTLY what you are describing.
MJ, I think you just proved my point. I didn't say downtowns, it's Chicago's downtown is the main tourist attraction, I didn't say it was for every other city. Everything you described above, Disneyland, Universal Studios are tourist areas, not neighborhoods where people go to see the neighborhoods. Some of the beaches are some of the beaches aren't. This has nothing to do with downtowns, it has to do with places that cater to tourists.
However, L.A. might be a little bit of both. Since many of the touristy areas of L.A. are so spread apart from each other, you really have to go through many neighborhoods to get there.
Charleston, SC. People go to downtown, the harbor and the waterfront. Of course there are other attracttions, like the plantations. But these are technically in town.
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.
