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.
It has a lot going against it now, but I'm not sure how anyone can deny it's not one of America's most international cities.
It has the busiest international border crossing in the continent, and in terms of distance it is closest in the world. Detroit and Windsor combined make up the largest international Metropolis in the world.
Uhm ok whatever man. If you want to continue thinking Santa Fe is an international city by all means go ahead, but everyone will just laugh at you.
They can Laugh all the want, I care less. I am from a foreign country, and know lots of people who gone visit Santa Fe and its not unusual for foreigners (considering its the oldest city in the U.S.), more..than your beloved Philadelphia the cream cheese of tourism lol
But your from the U.S. so how could you look at it from an international perspective when you are a U.S. citizen?
I think the problem with Houston is that it has a port but it is too far inland to be seen as a coastal city. Galveston is over 50 miles away and on top of that Texas beaches aren't much a draw for tourists or even Texans. I see Houston as I see Orlando, not far from the coast but not a coastal city. Actually at least the beaches near Orlando are nice, not so much for Houston. Houston has the Houston Ship Channel connecting it to the gulf but Houston's too far from the coast and the beach is too irrelevant to the culture of Houston for it to be considered a true coastal city.
I would have visited SF if I had more time. But yes, if I HAD to choose I'd take LA over SF. However I've spoken to many people who say they'd rather go to SF and would skip LA. I actually suggested those people were a bit dismissive in an old thread.
If you find the stats for international visitors to SF, though, I'd think the figures would be a lot closer. Sure, probably in favour of LA, but SF isn't way behind either.
Bottom line is that when it comes to international recognition, people talk about SF in relation to LA, but never the other way around.
When people from abroad think about LA, they think about LA. When its about SF, they think about how DIFFERENT it is from LA.
Shows how unique SF really is
Bottom line is that SF should be nowhere NEAR the top 5 most international cities in the US. And that's not even hyperbole.
It has a lot going against it now, but I'm not sure how anyone can deny it's not one of America's most international cities.
It has the busiest international border crossing in the continent, and in terms of distance it is closest in the world. Detroit and Windsor combined make up the largest international Metropolis in the world.
I think the problem with Houston is that it has a port but it is too far inland to be seen as a coastal city. Galveston is over 50 miles away and on top of that Texas beaches aren't much a draw for tourists or even Texans. I see Houston as I see Orlando, not far from the coast but not a coastal city. Actually at least the beaches near Orlando are nice, not so much for Houston. Houston has the Houston Ship Channel connecting it to the gulf but Houston's too far from the coast and the beach is too irrelevant to the culture of Houston for it to be considered a true coastal city.
Galveston is part of the metro and it IS on the coast. Houston City limits actually touch the coast too. Plus there are at least 4 counties that touch the coast.
There is no too far about it. Houston is on the coast. Metro and City. Orlando and especially pittsburgh are crappy examples.The City of Orlando is what 45 miles from the coast, Houston's is ZERO!!!!!
Pittsburgh is no where near the coast but on a River
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,606 posts, read 55,813,394 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215
Bottom line is that when it comes to international recognition, people talk about SF in relation to LA, but never the other way around.
When people from abroad think about LA, they think about LA. When its about SF, they think about how DIFFERENT it is from LA.
Shows how unique SF really is
Bottom line is that SF should be nowhere NEAR the top 5 most international cities in the US. And that's not even hyperbole.
You seem to have an axe to grind against SF. SF stands on it's own right, it's not merely an afterthought after LA. Not everything thinks Hollywood.etc when they think California.
Bottom line is that when it comes to international recognition, people talk about SF in relation to LA, but never the other way around.
When people from abroad think about LA, they think about LA. When its about SF, they think about how DIFFERENT it is from LA.
Shows how unique SF really is
Bottom line is that SF should be nowhere NEAR the top 5 most international cities in the US. And that's not even hyperbole.
That's extreme hyperbole.
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.
