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.
1.Where can people enjoy LEGAL weed at home outside the Netherlands and Uruguay?
2.A lot more than you think.
3.Can't find the link anymore but i've read that around 80% of non-Canadian foreigners that come to the US for skiing/snowboarding go to Colorado.
4.Yeah many come down from Vancouver, they only count plane arrivals.
5.How dare you! Never heard of the Space Needle?
Washington is in the top 5 states when it comes down to nature, wildlife, mountains, forest and lakes.
1. Weed isn't legal in California either. Do I make my point?
2 & 3. Colorado ≠ Denver. Also, until I see numbers, I'm going to guess it's not a lot more than I think.
4. Seems fairly low impact on a comparative scale.
5. How dare I? Seriously? Yes I've heard of the Space Needle. I said internationally famous and recognizable. A majority of people, including educated people, probably have no idea what the Space Needle is, let alone would they consider it a tourist attraction worthy of a costly trip to America. Again, lots of places have nature, wildlife, forests and lakes. Hurrah. Washington is beautiful no doubt. Doesn't make it one of the top 10 tourist destinations in the US.
Again, lots of places have nature, wildlife, forests and lakes. Hurrah. Washington is beautiful no doubt. Doesn't make it one of the top 10 tourist destinations in the US.
Don't you agree that Washington State is in the top 5 best states for every nature freak visiting the US?
Don't you agree that Washington State is in the top 5 best states for every nature freak visiting the US?
I would say Top 10. California, Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Montana have more unique sceneries for nature lovers, IMO.
In the West, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming are definitely competitive in Washington. And outside the West, NY State and North Carolina are possibly competitive with Washington, IMO.
The problem is other U.S. cities have far better skylines, far more density, or far more beautiful waterfronts. Chicago has many excellent attributes but not many singular "only in Chicago" type attributes. It's usually #2, #3, or #4 in the U.S. on most things.
I don't think too many people will agree with this. Osaka is basically the Rust Belt of Japan, and has been declining in importance to Tokyo and even Yokohama, for decades.
Chicago is a vacation unto itself, and is the destination of many local tourists throughout the U.S. It has many great museums which only have things that are in Chicago; the Art institute with the largest, or one of the largest impressionist collections, the Museum of Natural History, with Sue, the largest intact dinosaur, the Museaum of Science and Industry, which is huge and archecturally significant from the Columbian exposition, the skydeck on Willis tower, an extensive theatre district, a comedy club scene including second city, beaches, Magnificent Mile shopping, top rated restaurants, significant architecture and buildings that can be seen on foot, on boat or on double decker bus, Navy Pier, the Lincoln Park zoo, on and on within a reasonable proximity to each other. Are you saying that this is not attractive as a vacation destination? To see all these sights takes days, and is interesting. My trips to SF consisted of freezing trips to Alcatraz, China town, the pier disctrict and Golden Gate park. Better skyline? Sorry, the view of Chicago from the Planetarium is second to none. SF to me was dirty, gritty and full of homeless; I loved the hills and some of the views but overall not nearly as much to do as in Chicago. Being #2 or #3 on many attributes adds ups to one great vacation.
Chicago is a vacation unto itself, and is the destination of many local tourists throughout the U.S. It has many great museums which only have things that are in Chicago;
No one denied this. You're missing the point, which is that Chicago is very strong and well-rounded, but isn't #1 in really anything.
When you go to Italy, you want to see the best Roman ruins, or the most amazing historic hill towns. You don't want to see the #4 museum of impressionist art, or the #3 skyline, or the #2 office district or the #5 shopping core.
That's why Chicago gets lots of tourists from the Midwest; because it's the big dog. But it gets fewer nationally, and even fewer internationally, because then the appeal isn't as obvious.
If you came to the U.S. from Europe or Asia for a two-week trip, what would be the "must see" thing that would lure you to Chicago over other obvious destinations? In other words, what in Chicago is going to cause to to forsake the Grand Canyon, Disney, NYC, Vegas, South Beach, Hollywood, Yosemite, etc.?
NYC and SF has giant skyscrapers. SF and NYC has dense walkable neighborhoods. It has a nice waterfront for where it's located, but SF has natural beauty surrounding it.
Essentially, Sf has everything Chicago and probably more...NYC is just massive period and has like 3x the things Chicago has.
So I go back to the question: Why should a foreign visitor see Chicago over the charm and beauty of SF, the glamour and excitement of L.A., or the massive, world class city of New York?
Cities like Miami, Vegas, and Orlando have specific niche things going for them like nice beaches or great nightlife or amusement parks and that's why they get a abnormally high amount of foreign visitors.
Chicago is well round, but it doesn't excel at anything. NYC is well rounded, but excels in almost everything.
SF is quite small compared to Chicago--Chicago has more of the hulking skyscrapers than SF. It's nowhere near NYC's size, but then it has that waterfront with water you can actually dip into in the summer months abutting that downtown--that part is very different from almost any major city waterfront. And when is SF and its waterfront really warm enough to go sunbathing or swimming in the water wearing swimming trunks or bikinis? How about having another one in the winter with the ice and snow embankments?
I think Chicago should actually try to go for a niche of reconfiguring the interesting infrastructure of the city. Like I said, making better use of the bi and tri level streets, converting some of the alleys, the pursuit of massive construction projects, and the expansion and improvement of its underground city.
SF is quite small compared to Chicago--Chicago has more of the hulking skyscrapers than SF.
I don't think tourists plan their vacations around "hulking skyscrapers". If they did, then places like Sao Paulo would be much more popular than Paris. And if you really want "hulking skyscrapers" in the U.S., why not go to NYC, which has many times more than Chicago?
SF is appealing because it's very beautiful and has iconic attractions like Alcatraz, Golden Gate, Chinatown, cable cars and the like. And it's very close to wine country and redwoods, and not super-far from Yosemite and the most beautiful parts of the CA coast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
It's nowhere near NYC's size, but then it has that waterfront with water you can actually dip into in the summer months abutting that downtown--that part is very different from almost any major city waterfront.
I don't think tourists plan their vacations around this either, at least not for city vacations. Chicago doesn't really have particularly good beaches, they're only usable a few months a year, and it isn't really unique. I can think of urban beaches in most major U.S. cities (certainly LA, SF, SD, NYC, Miami, and others), and most are ocean beaches.
I don't think tourists plan their vacations around "hulking skyscrapers". If they did, then places like Sao Paulo would be much more popular than Paris. And if you really want "hulking skyscrapers" in the U.S., why not go to NYC, which has many times more than Chicago?
SF is appealing because it's very beautiful and has iconic attractions like Alcatraz, Golden Gate, Chinatown, cable cars and the like. And it's very close to wine country and redwoods, and not super-far from Yosemite and the most beautiful parts of the CA coast.
I don't think tourists plan their vacations around this either, at least not for city vacations. Chicago doesn't really have particularly good beaches, they're only usable a few months a year, and it isn't really unique. I can think of urban beaches in most major U.S. cities (certainly LA, SF, SD, NYC, Miami, and others), and most are ocean beaches.
I think Chicago can sell itself better, basically. And people do get boners for skyscrapers--especially iconic ones which Chicago does have and Sao Paulo does not. I have one right now. A boner.
"In New York, you could sit in a corner all day and have a more fulfilling time than traveling all over L.A. and seeing all the sights," - L.A. native Leonardo DiCaprio.
Yet he still chooses to live in la. Thats a pretty big stretch too. I was bored in times square in 15 minutes.
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.
