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.
I didn't say that those cities didn't get a lot of people there strictly for visiting the city without having familial ties to the area... I'm just saying that the raw numbers don't tell the whole story. I for one would like to see those numbers taken out but I doubt they parse it out that much. I used SF and Miami as examples because they are more or less the centers of the Asian and Latin American communities in the US, respectively, so they are going to get a lot of people visiting from those parts of the world for family reasons. The same could be said for LA and NY, which I have acknowledged.
It could be a lot of things--there'd also be a lot of foreign business travel for SF Bay Area(I assuming this counts the whole Bay Area), in addition to people with family connections, and foreign tourists. There's a ton of Chinese tourists on the West Coast these days(can't speak for what the rest of the country is like)--even in rinky dink Portland I see Chinese tourists groups every day downtown(used to just be Japanese). But growing up in the area, even as a kid, I saw foreign tourists all over popular areas in and around the Bay.
Like Montclair said Orlando and Vegas and Honolulu are probably the exceptions to this list--where most of the visitors are simply tourists and not coming for other reasons.
Agreed, however in SF there is 1 super duper touristy thing that would normally fall in to the above category but it absolutely does not - the Alcatraz NIGHT Tour (night, not day although that's not bad either) - it is amazing. I go all the time, and I'm from here.
I grew up in Santa Cruz with family in the Bay and used to live in San Francisco for a little bit--and I still haven't been to Alcatraz... I figure I should go some day, but it's one of the things where I know I'll be back in SF a few times a year for the rest of my life--one time I should just go to see the damn thing. The night tour sounds interesting though.
The thing I hate though is when co-workers who've never been ask me where to go in San Francisco and the Bay Area and I'll write out a list of places to go--and specifically mention that they might as well avoid Fisherman's Wharf--and then when they get back they inevitably spend most of their time in Fisherman's Wharf and Union Square.
I'm more suprised SF is able to pull so many visitors. No one is going there for the weather or beaches. There is no gambling or amusement parks. No history to speak of. You wont see any celebrities. The nightlife is decent by US standards, but I can't see it being an international draw.
San Francisco is one of the nicest cities in North America.
Miami Beach is probably one of the only beach tourist spots in the US that can hold the interest of visitors from Europe or Latin America. The rest of our beach resort towns are usually pretty provincial and boring on an international level and/or lack good year-round weather and sub-tropical beaches.
Honolulu/Waikiki Beach is nicer and more vibrant than South Beach.
I predict for 2014 Orlando will pass L.A., but the only real difference is Los Angeles Metro has about 12.8 million residents, while Metro Orlando has about 2.1 million.
Well, if you are using Metro figures then you'd have to add the Anaheim/Santa Ana overseas vistors numbers to L.A.'s numbers. But yeah, I'm sure Orlando will pass L.A. in the next 2 years probably.
Of course, all of this data excludes Mexico and Canada, which would probably swing the figures by a lot.
Honolulu/Waikiki Beach is nicer and more vibrant than South Beach.
That's debatable as far as being more vibrant(or having better places to eat).
But I said "probably one of the only" not that it was the only place. Europeans love Miami Beach though--as do Latin Americans, that's not really arguable. Waikiki is more Americans and Asian tourists.
You clearly have never been to SF or know much about it if you think there is "no history to speak of" in the city. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand why SF pulls so many visitors, it's a beautiful, HISTORICAL, vibrant, urban city. Arguably one of the most picturesque in the nation.
I've been to SF countless times. Both business and pleasure. It's a great city. A great weekend trip. I just don't get the international draw. Not those numbers anyway.
And no, the 1800's are not historical. Not even by American standards.
And no, the 1800's are not historical. Not even by American standards.
No what happened in the 1800s is obviously history. Even most of the buildings in Boston and New York are from the 1800s or later except for the scattered historical monuments from the 18th Century or the very rare 17th Century building.
It'd be like saying that the French Quarter or Beacon Hill aren't "historical" areas because they were mostly built up in the 1800s...
I've been to SF countless times. Both business and pleasure. It's a great city. A great weekend trip. I just don't get the international draw. Not those numbers anyway.
And no, the 1800's are not historical. Not even by American standards.
Well I guess the obvious isn't obvious to everyone lol.
Then really no large American city is "historical" then I guess according to your "standards".
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.
