What does Dallas need to become a world class tourists destination? (Houston: apartment, city hall)

[rantanamo]

Originally Posted by TrueDat

I find it interesting that you don't mention Deep Ellum. With its phenomenal musical history, that should be one of the city's showcase areas -- like Beale Street in Memphis, Hollywood Blvd. in LA., etc. That it's not well-known, and its history isn't well preserved, says a lot about how the city views itself. (As it is, there are still some cool things to do there.)

And whatever happened to that Texas Music Hall of Fame that was supposed to be in either Fair Park or Deep Ellum?

Because those involved with Deep Ellum don't want it to be that. Whenever you ask or speculate on what happened to Deep Ellum, the answer from those who are veterans of the place say its the very growing popularity that brought the crime and turned into something it isn't.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by rantanamo

We scoff at things like tourism and big events, but they are a bit of a preview as to how we will handle our future if we continue to grow. This is bad grammer, but We aint ready.

Totally agree. This past Superbowl proves this point quite clearly. Dallas wasn't ready for the Superbowl, and honestly, it was a disgrace.

Although many of you won't admit it, Houston has made better strides to being a tourist destination than Dallas. Houston has NASA, the area around Rice University is beautiful, there's Kemah Boardwalk, they're redoing Buffalo Bayou, etc... They'll even admit they have a long ways to go, but they are doing what they can. And they hosted a fantastic Superbowl a few years back.

I also don't believe you have to pick either business or tourism. Why can't you have both.

[ClarenceBodiker]

Originally Posted by cBach

Totally agree. This past Superbowl proves this point quite clearly. Dallas wasn't ready for the Superbowl, and honestly, it was a disgrace.

Although many of you won't admit it, Houston has made better strides to being a tourist destination than Dallas. Houston has NASA, the area around Rice University is beautiful, there's Kemah Boardwalk, they're redoing Buffalo Bayou, etc... They'll even admit they have a long ways to go, but they are doing what they can. And they hosted a fantastic Superbowl a few years back.

I also don't believe you have to pick either business or tourism. Why can't you have both.

I think some people feel like if a place is touristy, it can be gimmicky or annoying for locals. I don't think that's the case at all. People go places because they are exciting and worthwhile. Dallas is a great place to live, but I would never vacation here if I lived somewhere else. And most importantly, tourists = tax dollars. Maybe if we gave more people a reason to come here regularly and spend money, those taxes could go towards improving the quality of life here for our residents.


I pretty much agree with everything you've said in this thread.

[ClarenceBodiker]

Also, people visit places to take in its culture. Dallas is in a transitional mode trying to find out exactly what that culture is.

Like others have said, it really needs to find something it does really well (other than business) and run with it. Dallas needs a cultural identity. San Antonio, Austin, Fort Worth all have found their niche. Dallas (and Houston) are really the only big cities in Texas that don't have this. Their culture just feels like big business.

Dallas really needs to try to recapture its inner-Texan.

[Overcooked_Oatmeal]

I'm clutching my pearls and laughing. Haven't we been through this before, class? Dallas is a business city, plain and simple. The infrastructure, the Balkanized suburban environment that siphons and sucks the life out of Dallas itself, the ignorant 'leadership' of the city council, the marginally attractive natural environment, the dearth of options for outdoor activities, and the unbearable climate for most of the year will prevent Dallas from being a viable tourist destination, let alone a 'world-class' one. Besides, the powers that be in Dallas need to focus on QOL issues to make the city more liveable for the people who live there before they can even think about trying to attract tourists. How about making Victory Park a viable part of town instead of an almost empty white elephant? How about more parks and space? Filling potholes? Actually having a Tier-1 University to better educate the populace? Let's face it - Dallas is not a city for tourists, never has been and never will be. It's a city people move to for jobs and cheap houses, that's it.

My parents live in Vegas, one of the biggest tourist traps in the world, and it's a pain to do the simplest of tasks from that factor alone. Do you really want that, Dallas? Hell, where I live now, I try to avoid certain parts of town to avoid the hordes of tourists, especially the dumb hayseeds who don't realize that you walk to the left and stand to the right on the Metro escalator!

Stay in your lane, lovemuffins! Deal with the fact that you're a business town with little to no identity besides the stereotypes of JR Ewing and Cowboys or the reality of the bland, sterile, suburban environment of the area. All the building of coathanger bridges-to-nowhere or whatever other multibillion-dollar boondoggle built by the developer/corporate oligarchies who really run Dallas won't help.

[lakehighlands]

Originally Posted by Overcooked_Oatmeal

the ignorant 'leadership' of the city council

Ignorant is an understatement for many of them!

[cBach]

Originally Posted by Overcooked_Oatmeal

My parents live in Vegas, one of the biggest tourist traps in the world, and it's a pain to do the simplest of tasks from that factor alone. Do you really want that, Dallas? .

Why does the choice have to be between all business or "Las Vegas"? What about Atlanta? They have a good mix of business and culture. What about Nashville? They have the country music tourism but are also a good business city.

If you want bigger, what about Chicago? It's a giant city with large corporations headquartered there (remember when Boeing chose Chicago over Dallas because of QOL issues)? It also has wonderful attractions.

Also, heat shouldn't be a factor. San Antonio is hotter than Dallas and it gets far more visitors. Las Vegas is much hotter than Dallas and you'll still see people walking down the strip in 110 degree heat.

There should be no excuses. Dallas should focus on these things but it's not. If it spent 1/10 of the energy on tourism that it does on business, it could become a good tourism destination in 10-15 years.

[Spade]

The weather thing is the biggest excuse anyone can make to not enjoy a city. It's hot from June-early September. Use that to your advantage. Most cities have extreme weather conditions throughout this world and people still are frolicking like it's a regular day 70 degree day.

I don't know whether O_O's comments are either constructive criticism or just plain bashing. In fact, it's maybe both at the same time.

[TrueDat]

Count me in as one who doesn't understand why you can't aim for more than just being a business city or a tourism city.

As dysfunctional as it is, Los Angeles is a city that started off at a severe disadvantage to its more "cultured" and populated city to the north, San Francisco, and by the '80s it was the tourism, business, banking, communications and entertainment capital of the West Coast. (The Internet revolution in NoCal shifted some of the focus back to the Bay Area). Still, there's no denying the economic juggernaut that Los Angeles became and it proves that one doesn't have to be all tourism or all business, you can have some of both.

Like Dallas, LA was once (and still is in some quarters) sneered at by New York and SF types who blasted it for a sprawl-n-mall landscape, lack of adequate public transit, no culture, and for being a vapid wasteland of poseurs and pretenders. (While the oft-quoted phrase "There's no there there" was aimed originally at Oakland, it was often used for Los Angeles too. And don't forget Woody Allen's jab that LA's only contribution to culture is the ability to turn right on red.)

Granted, LA has some natural (oceans and mountains) and culturally unique (Hollywood) advantages that Dallas doesn't have. And LA may have been too successful luring both people and business in the late 20th century there as the general decline in the QOL in recent years attests. It's doubtful a drought/flood/quake-prone desert basin was meant to house upwards of 10 million people. But Dallas could make the most of what natural (Trinity River) and cultural (Deep Ellum) qualities it potentially has, in the same way that Austin (the lake, the music industry, SXSW, etc.) and San Antonio (Riverwalk, Hispanic culture) have done and Houston seems to be doing.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by TrueDat

Count me in as one who doesn't understand why you can't aim for more than just being a business city or a tourism city.

As dysfunctional as it is, Los Angeles is a city that started off at a severe disadvantage to its more "cultured" and populated city to the north, San Francisco, and by the '80s it was the tourism, business, banking, communications and entertainment capital of the West Coast. (The Internet revolution in NoCal shifted some of the focus back to the Bay Area). Still, there's no denying the economic juggernaut that Los Angeles became and it proves that one doesn't have to be all tourism or all business, you can have some of both.

Like Dallas, LA was once (and still is in some quarters) sneered at by New York and SF types who blasted it for a sprawl-n-mall landscape, lack of adequate public transit, no culture, and for being a vapid wasteland of poseurs and pretenders. (While the oft-quoted phrase "There's no there there" was aimed originally at Oakland, it was often used for Los Angeles too. And don't forget Woody Allen's jab that LA's only contribution to culture is the ability to turn right on red.)

Granted, LA has some natural (oceans and mountains) and culturally unique (Hollywood) advantages that Dallas doesn't have. And LA may have been too successful luring both people and business in the late 20th century there as the general decline in the QOL in recent years attests. It's doubtful a drought/flood/quake-prone desert basin was meant to house upwards of 10 million people. But Dallas could make the most of what natural (Trinity River) and cultural (Deep Ellum) qualities it potentially has, in the same way that Austin (the lake, the music industry, SXSW, etc.) and San Antonio (Riverwalk, Hispanic culture) have done and Houston seems to be doing.

Totally agree.

LA is a great travel destination, especially among families. We are planning a trip there sometime to visit Disneyland, Hollywood, Venice Beach, Santa Monica, etc... It doesn't have the beauty of San Francisco, but honestly it has more to do, for a family at least. It also has a vibrancy that is hard to pin down.

Also, LA now has a comprehensive subway, heavy and light rail, and its population density has been increasing exponentially in recent years.