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.
Coming from Seattle which is an "It" city, I remember when I moved there in 1989 there wasn't much to it from a tourist perspective. There was the Space Needle and Pike Place Market and the Underground Tour in the old part of the city (Pioneer Square), but no really good museums or historic sights. But the setting is gorgeous - ferries crossing Puget Sound with the Olympic Mountains in the distance...all very scenic. And it used to be a very livable place before becoming an "It" city which led to its ruination IMO. So it seems to me that Cleveland could and should work more on creating a city/area that draws people to work and live here. I don't see all that much here to draw tourists especially when compared to Chicago and NYC as others have noted, but if more neighborhoods were revitalized as well as the downtown, and the waterfront area enhanced and maximized, that would help too. I think the main thing should be to make it an appealing and desirable place to live and the rest will probably follow.
I agree, there are enough tourist cities out there and a more livable city should be a goal. Seattle did seem to be that in the mid-90s, a cleaner, roomier version of SF. If Cleveland (or any other rebound city) focuses on improving neighborhood connectedness and infrastructure, the rest will follow.
Status:
"Mistress of finance and foods."
(set 12 days ago)
Location: Coastal Georgia
49,968 posts, read 63,265,686 times
Reputation: 92403
Get rid of the Democrats who have driven it into the ground.
Cleveland has so much potential....the lakefront, basketball, football and baseball. Some good restaurants, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the art museum. It is hard to figure out how they have managed to spoil it. It's as if they've worked at it.
We all can cite individuals who came to Cleveland and liked it. But can you seriously think Cleveland can compete with Chicago and new York for tourists?
Like I said, sure there are some people who will be interested in coming. Might as well try to get as many as you can. It's nice to see more people visiting. But tourism is NOT going to be the backbone of Cleveland. Destination cleveland wants 20 million by 2020 or something? Faneuil hall in boston alone already gets more than 20 million visitors per year. Cleveland is WAY behind. And thats ok. I'm not sure you really thought about the message of my post here. The advantage of what Cleveland can have is that it's a fantastic place to live. It could be better though. Worrying about what people who don't live there want to do for 3 days during a business trip is selling the city short, in my opinion.
As I said, cleveland attracts most with the rock hall. Ask anyone from the general american to name anything in Cleveland other than the rock hall and I doubt they could (as a tourist attraction). Nor could they name a street in cle. I rarely run into people on the east coast (where I actually live all the time) who have anything to say about Cleveland at all that isn't about lebron james.
Again my point is that Cleveland is just not going to become a "popular" city on the national scale. That's probably a good thing. It's much smarter to focus on jobs and economics to grow the city and make it relevant again. I think within our lifetimes we can see major progress.
You and some of the posts before you make some good points. Cleveland shouldn't try to be any other city just be Cleveland. Focus on jobs and making it livable for its citizens. If people still don't wanna come, that's on them.
But, you live on the East Coast so you're surrounded by people who have that superficial mesofacts mentality. They think of Cleveland of old, and still think it's like that now; they think nothing's changed. I vet they think about the river on fire or even Mike Polk's video as a valuable source. In fact, most of them will tell you they never been to Cleveland, but they go by what they heard in the media and social media. The Coasters think nothing is great beyond the Atlantic Ocean or Hudson River. A lot of them are ignorant and arrogant. Plus, the Coast and Chicago love to use Cleveland as a whipping boy to feel about the city they live in.
You and some of the posts before you make some good points. Cleveland shouldn't try to be any other city just be Cleveland. Focus on jobs and making it livable for its citizens. If people still don't wanna come, that's on them.
But, you live on the East Coast so you're surrounded by people who have that superficial mesofacts mentality. They think of Cleveland of old, and still think it's like that now; they think nothing's changed. I vet they think about the river on fire or even Mike Polk's video as a valuable source. In fact, most of them will tell you they never been to Cleveland, but they go by what they heard in the media and social media. The Coasters think nothing is great beyond the Atlantic Ocean or Hudson River. A lot of them are ignorant and arrogant. Plus, the Coast and Chicago love to use Cleveland as a whipping boy to feel about the city they live in.
Yep I'm not saying east coasters are right to not care about cleveland, but the fact is that they don't. They're not gonna forego their trips to LA or San Francisco to check Cleveland out. In my opinion that's their loss. I don't see a point in trying to pathetically appease the coastal elites. Screw em.
Yep I'm not saying east coasters are right to not care about cleveland, but the fact is that they don't. They're not gonna forego their trips to LA or San Francisco to check Cleveland out. In my opinion that's their loss. I don't see a point in trying to pathetically appease the coastal elites. Screw em.
I was just pointing out the attitudes of most Coasters (East and West) in general. Not all coastal people are elite, they could be the most broke person in the world. But, some of them still think they're better than an middle or upper class Midwest person that's not from Chicago. Like I said most of these people base their information on news or social media. What are the attitudes of most East Coasters from your experience?
Get rid of the Democrats who have driven it into the ground.
Cleveland has so much potential....the lakefront, basketball, football and baseball. Some good restaurants, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the art museum. It is hard to figure out how they have managed to spoil it. It's as if they've worked at it.
Cleveland has had a Republican mayor also. We just need the right political structure, it's not always about political party all the time. There's some heavily Republican spots that aren't in great shape either.
Worry more about Columbus eclipsing Cleveland if it hasn't done so already. Don't worry so much about Nashville. It's really sad to see the capital city absorbing much of the new population and wealth and leaving Cleveland and Cincy but especially Cleveland high and dry. What C-Town needs is a comprehensive master plan, not the type that talks only about zoning and subdivisions, but a tangible plan that targets education, health and well being, economic development, crime, and community relationships.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the City strives to have:
the best urban education system in Ohio
the smallest Gini coefficient (that measures income inequality) in Ohio
the lowest unemployment rate in Ohio
markedly decreased crime rates, especially in the East Side so that people will want to stay in Mt. Pleasant, Glenville, Hough, and Buckeye Shaker, etc.
strong public-private partnerships with assurances that businesses will stay in the city and region
It's fun to compare Cleveland to Nashville, Charlotte, Atlanta, Boston, New York or any other city outside of the Midwest/Great Lakes Region but in the end, "it" best compares to it's closer neighbors such as Columbus, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, and Cincinnati. See what those cities are doing to reinvest in themselves and then do it better than them.
We all can cite individuals who came to Cleveland and liked it. But can you seriously think Cleveland can compete with Chicago and new York for tourists?
Like I said, sure there are some people who will be interested in coming. Might as well try to get as many as you can. It's nice to see more people visiting. But tourism is NOT going to be the backbone of Cleveland. Destination cleveland wants 20 million by 2020 or something? Faneuil hall in boston alone already gets more than 20 million visitors per year. Cleveland is WAY behind. And thats ok. I'm not sure you really thought about the message of my post here. The advantage of what Cleveland can have is that it's a fantastic place to live. It could be better though. Worrying about what people who don't live there want to do for 3 days during a business trip is selling the city short, in my opinion.
As I said, cleveland attracts most with the rock hall. Ask anyone from the general american to name anything in Cleveland other than the rock hall and I doubt they could (as a tourist attraction). Nor could they name a street in cle. I rarely run into people on the east coast (where I actually live all the time) who have anything to say about Cleveland at all that isn't about lebron james.
Again my point is that Cleveland is just not going to become a "popular" city on the national scale. That's probably a good thing. It's much smarter to focus on jobs and economics to grow the city and make it relevant again. I think within our lifetimes we can see major progress.
I tend to agree with you. Cleveland to me has always seemed like a city determined to always go for the next big thing when it should've been focused on all the basics that would be far more likely to turn its fortunes around. Big attractions are great and all, but they're mild enhancements at best compared to your day-to-day quality of life, and those day-to-day characteristics are much more important to most people when considering where to live. I think leadership just has to learn that bigger isn't necessarily better, though I don't just think that's a problem with leadership. Most of the posts here don't mention characteristics like good infrastructure, safety, good schools, etc., but rather the "big ticket" stuff like tourist attractions. Your average potential resident isn't likely to move to Cleveland just because there's a good museum and a pro football team.
Again my point is that Cleveland is just not going to become a "popular" city on the national scale. That's probably a good thing. It's much smarter to focus on jobs and economics to grow the city and make it relevant again.
I've seen cities that didn't focus on jobs and economics and they have become exclusive and unwelcoming because of the competition for jobs, housing and even parking spaces.
Having said that though, I think Cleveland's tourist attractions can help to a degree. As one who has moved long distance twice, I can say that things like theaters, museums, etc contributed to my relocation decisions. These things have some weight. No one wants a place where there's nothing to do. And Cleveland does offer a variety from classical music to sports and just about everything in between.
Being between New York might be a good thing because Cleveland can match their attractions at a much lower cost. If I were an out of towner and wanted great theater as an example, Cleveland is the place to be if I don't want to pay New York or Chicago prices.
More on topic, Cleveland doesn't really have a lot going for it in the tourist realm. It's not an attractive city, the lakefront isn't easy to access from downtown and the weather is difficult in the winter. When I visited (a few years ago, so I may be a bit out of date), it was a three day town at best.
As someone who lives on the East Coast and visits Cleveland regularly, I have to disagree with this. There are plenty of interesting things to see and do from visiting the cemetery where Garfield was buried to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to the arboretum (both the one in the city and the one just out of town). We always try to see a performance at Severance Hall and/or Playhouse Square. We also enjoy dining at certain restaurants that serve cousines that are very hard to find in most East Coast cities (e.g., East European). There are also a lot of things to do that are an easy drive (e.g., the Amish Country).
Last time we were there we decided to see a small house that was supposedly one of the oldest homes in Cleveland. It was somewhere on the West Side (Lakewood?), and after seeing the house, we found this beautiful park on the lake. We spent several hours there.
Yes, there are plenty of things to do in larger cities, but they also tend to be VERY crowded, which makes the whole experience a lot less enjoyable. Not to mention that some things have become overcrowded tourist traps (e.g., the Smithsonian in D.C. or any of the museums in Chicago) and are downright unpleasant to visit.
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.
