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's not difficult to see how New York might leave a bad first impression on a first visitor, say from a city with first class infrastructure like Tokyo. They arrive first at a horrible, crumbling airport, take a bumpy cab ride along crumbling, tired streets, across crusty old bridges into more crumbling streets. Then in many cases the first place they visit is Times Square If they then wander far south enough from there into Chinatown there's no hope at that point. Haha.
A problem with New York is that it looks very little like it does in the brochures. Photos or films will not show the finer details like the fact that grand buildings that look great from far away have awful, bland textures when seen up close and that so much of it feels tired and old. Granted there are parts of New York that look new like the WTC, the new south ferry terminus and a Fulton street exchange but the overwhelming experience of visiting this city is that far too much of it is old and falling apart.
With this being said it goes to show how strong New York is in other areas for it to be considered among the greatest cities of the world.
Actually, to me, this is why NYC stands out for foreign visitors as a positive, and often for domestic visitors as a negative.
You are clearly American or East Asian, because you talk about NYC being "too old" and complain about not enough "modern stuff". In most of the world, old stuff is good stuff, and the new stuff sucks. If anything, NYC is not quite old enough, that could be a criticism. But it feels older than anywhere else in the U.S., so some Americans used to bland modern stuff complain. I have often heard "eww, too many old buildings, needs more glass", where I am dumbfounded that someone would want the city to look totally generic. And it isn't like there's a shortage of newer buildings; NYC builds more than most cities, obviously.
There is a type of traveler who thinks "eww, old stuff, it's falling down; where's the Applebees". My sister was like that then when she first visited Venice. Tokyo, to most travelers, is quite generic, which is why it isn't an iconic travel destination. It's huge and has an interesting and unique culture, but the built form is totally generic.
Travelers don't care if the buildings are "modern", that isn't an appeal of travel; otherwise Singapore would be the most visited city in the world and Paris would be the least visited city in the world. In the real world, Paris is the most visited city, and Singapore is a non-entity in terms of tourism, because Paris has character.
In terms of city character, at least for visitors, the older the streetscape, the better, 99.9% of the time. You really need a pre WW2 cityscape to have an appealing street-level feel. The best U.S. cities for urban travel- NYC, Boston, Philly, DC, Chicago, SF and NOLA, have a prewar character at the center.
Hilarious, given that I have lived most of my life outside the U.S., travel for my job, and have been all around the world.
Please name these many cities much greater than NYC. This was your claim, so put up or shut up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Obviously, no, one does not need to "read the mind of every single visitor". That would be absurd. The claim was that there were many cities that were clearly more impressive, and I'm asking you to name them.
Ironic and kinda sad you ask me to read, when it's quite clear you didn't read the thread yourself.
Those are the three cities previously listed that were competitive on some factors. London, Paris and Tokyo are obviously the cities, alongside NYC, ranked highest in the world, and I already indicated this. But there is no way these cities are clearly better. And I already indicated these three cities.
But that's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking you to list these many cities that are clearly better. Please go right ahead, we're waiting...
It seems to me that you don't understand the basic difference between opinion and fact.
To be impressed is opinion, not fact. It is not something physical that you can measure. That is not to say that it is fully subjective. Facts can and do influence opinion but they influence different people in different ways.
This means that it's pointless to argue when people state an opinion like "Paris is much more impressive overall than New York". You can argue or dispute a point when people make (erroneous) factual claims like "Paris has more financial services employees than New York" or "Paris has more skyscrapers than New York".
The state of being impressed is opinion, not fact. It is not something physical or objective that you can measure. That is not to say that it is fully subjective. Facts can and do influence opinion but they influence different people in different ways.
Using your weird criteria of total subjectivity, then there's no point to this thread or any thread, is there? Because anyone can just say "I think Gary, Indiana is more beautiful than Paris, so ha!".
YOU are the one that claimed that foreigners are not impressed with NYC because there are many such greater cities in the world. We are asking you to name these cities that are commonly agreed to be greater.
And we're still waiting...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72
This means that it's pointless to argue when people state an opinion like "Paris is overall much more impressive than New York". You can argue or dispute a point when people make (erroneous) factual claims like "Paris has more US style diners than New York" or "Paris has more skyscrapers than New York".
But there is no consensus that "Paris is overall much more impressive with New York". People don't think this. And we aren't talking about Paris, or London or Tokyo, which everyone agrees are the other first-tier cities.
Again, you are the one who made the claim, so you are the one who has the obligation to prove the claim. Otherwise, you're mindlessly trolling.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,281,063 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Hilarious, given that I have lived most of my life outside the U.S., travel for my job, and have been all around the world.
Please name these many cities much greater than NYC. This was your claim, so put up or shut up.
NOLA ....LAUGHING AT EVERYONE ELSES POST ...CALLING THEM TROLLS, HAVING WIERD CRITERIA....THROWS GAS ON THE FIRE??? If you didn't come in a thread and post something that agitates.... because it gains responses that should tell you that? Maybe it is everyone else? Maybe you have a way about you that comes across brash? The other day, posts in reply to yours, by a few others got heated. My post got deleted for a personal attack, mentioning your ID. All were scolded, then thread was closed. Though my last post was left.
.....Is there a pattern here?
It was fine to claim LA was a bit disappointing to you.. Though you then singled out Hollywood and Beverly Hills. YET FORIEGN TOURIST CHOOSE LA. TO SEE JUST THAT ON TOP OF A LIST? THAT IS IRONIC I GUESS AND HILARIOUS? Since this thread ask international tourist their opinions? Apparently they keep going to be disappointed like you?
Now you basically DARE people to claim what cities to them...... might be superior to NYC? As if HOW DARE THEY NOT AGREE WITH YOU?
We can all respect NYC, note its world renown, and impressiveness in many things. But other cities also have WOW factors LONDON, PARIS, ROME, HONG KONG, TOKYO, SF, RIO even ..... lowly Chicago (you cringe about now)?
THEIR PREFERENCES DOES NOT LESSEN NYC and you should not take it personal.... if for them NYC is not the center of the universe alone?
----Not DARE and demand they prove it to you?
Manhattan is amazing in many ways. But aspects or reality on a visit....can tarnish that DISNEYLAND URBAN PARADISE expectations, with its imperfections like.... not nearly as clean as most would like... and gated stores even on 5th Ave and garbage bags that you see on sidewalks? For some it is all GRIT that adds flavor. Other cities today have their share of VALUE AND BEST IN THE WORLD TOO. It is not only NYC with the BEST AND MOST.
Heck... On Triple AAA's list of top North American Restaurants. CHICAGO had a notable year this year, gaining three Five Diamond restaurants. That brings its total to seven restaurants earning top honors, putting it on par with culinary heavyweight New York City that had 7 too.
So others surely have warrant to not see NYC AS ONLY HAVING THE BEST .... even not always MOST in all things. BUT WE ALL SURELY NOTE NYC's VALUE AND ESTEEM and IMPORTANCE.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,281,063 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Steeps, your focused and succinct verbiage is only outdone by your rapier wit...
We are not to disrespect each others opinions.
Had to go to online dictionary...
Succinct;
expressed in few words; concise; terse. compressed into a small area, scope, or comp
rapier;
a longer, heavier sword, especially of the 16th and 17th centuries, having a double-edged blade and used for slashing and thrusting
Using your weird criteria of total subjectivity, then there's no point to this thread or any thread, is there? Because anyone can just say "I think Gary, Indiana is more beautiful than Paris, so ha!".
YOU are the one that claimed that foreigners are not impressed with NYC because there are many such greater cities in the world. We are asking you to name these cities that are commonly agreed to be greater.
We're still waiting...
But there is no consensus that "Paris is overall much more impressive with New York". People don't think this. And we aren't talking about Paris, or London or Tokyo, which everyone agrees are the other first-tier cities.
Again, you are the one who made the claim, so you are the one who has the obligation to prove the claim. Otherwise, you're mindlessly trolling.
This is a bizarre post. Your reasoning is all over the place and you're attributing statements to people that don't in any way resemble what they actually said. Noone has said anything about a consensus, and (so far) I've not mentioned my own opinion about where New York stands in terms of its impressiveness.
It appears that you don't understand what opinions are. I don't mean just in a semantic sense, but the very underpinning concept of it seems lost on you. I don't know why, but I find that quite disturbing.
When we disagree with someone, we explore the reasons why people hold different opinions to ours. If those reasons are shown to be erroneous or based on wrong information then it is reasonable to say that they can be challenged. But we simply don't deny other people's opinions or dismiss them right off the bat.
Last edited by Hightower72; 12-31-2014 at 03:24 PM..
Actually, to me, this is why NYC stands out for foreign visitors as a positive, and often for domestic visitors as a negative.
You are clearly American or East Asian, because you talk about NYC being "too old" and complain about not enough "modern stuff". In most of the world, old stuff is good stuff, and the new stuff sucks. If anything, NYC is not quite old enough, that could be a criticism. But it feels older than anywhere else in the U.S., so some Americans used to bland modern stuff complain. I have often heard "eww, too many old buildings, needs more glass", where I am dumbfounded that someone would want the city to look totally generic. And it isn't like there's a shortage of newer buildings; NYC builds more than most cities, obviously.
There is a type of traveler who thinks "eww, old stuff, it's falling down; where's the Applebees". My sister was like that then when she first visited Venice. Tokyo, to most travelers, is quite generic, which is why it isn't an iconic travel destination. It's huge and has an interesting and unique culture, but the built form is totally generic.
Travelers don't care if the buildings are "modern", that isn't an appeal of travel; otherwise Singapore would be the most visited city in the world and Paris would be the least visited city in the world. In the real world, Paris is the most visited city, and Singapore is a non-entity in terms of tourism, because Paris has character.
In terms of city character, at least for visitors, the older the streetscape, the better, 99.9% of the time. You really need a pre WW2 cityscape to have an appealing street-level feel. The best U.S. cities for urban travel- NYC, Boston, Philly, DC, Chicago, SF and NOLA, have a prewar character at the center.
You've completely misunderstood what I meant. It's kind of clear from context I meant "old" as in dilapidated and run down rather than historic. I actually love history, architecture from hundreds of years ago and I have a passion for the Renaissance period.
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.
If they then wander far south enough from there into Chinatown there's no hope at that point. Haha.
