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.
He criticizes the hipster in San Francisco who lectured him on how to order coffee correctly, but earlier in the article advises people to visit hipster capital Portland.
He claims Colorado Springs is boring and uptight, but gives no reason why, then advises travelers to visit Mormon-centric Utah instead.
He advises people to visit Detroit instead of Chicago, claiming Detroit has some of the country's best architecture. I didn't see much great architecture in Detroit, just the rumble remains of its iconic ballpark, Tiger Stadium.
I agree about Utah: who in his right mind could go there?
But Detroit has a lot of great architecture: but... better than Chicago? Please, at least Chicago's urban core is well-kept, wealthy and thriving.
Any expressions after reading the commentary for the North American cities? Agree or disagree? Why?
Ironically I disagree with David Landsel on every single one of them (for the North American ones at least), particularly because for me I find all those cities in their respective regions to be the most livable and interesting (again for me). I'll give him this though, while much of what he described about the personalities he encountered in most of those cities (cant comment on Asheville), I've noticed it too, I think he went way too much on the people everywhere rather than the actual cities itself. Hilarious stuff though.
As a reminder though, let's keep this conversation only to the North American cities he mentioned.
eek? The Smoky Mountains/Blue Ridge Mountains receive 9 million visitors per year, Asheville around 3 million and the Outer Banks around 5 million a year to name a few, so would say based on that North Carolina is definitely a serious tourist destination. Perhaps you should get out more to rid yourself of some inaccurate perceptions of the world around you.
Any expressions after reading the commentary for the North American cities? Agree or disagree? Why?
Ironically I disagree with David Landsel on every single one of them (for the North American ones at least), particularly because for me I find all those cities in their respective regions to be the most livable and interesting (again for me). I'll give him this though, while much of what he described about the personalities he encountered in most of those cities (cant comment on Asheville), I've noticed it too, I think he went way too much on the people everywhere rather than the actual cities itself. Hilarious stuff though.
As a reminder though, let's keep this conversation only to the North American cities he mentioned.
Lol this list is retarded. All the cities on that list are actually really nice cities. Detroit over Chicago, ha I don't think so. I love Detroit but its no Chicago. Denver as a midwestern snore? I have been to Denver many times and loved it, great city! Avoid Buenos Aires, omg this author should be fired. SF, Vancouver, and Berlin are hated on this list to, haha smh.
I can only speak on Chicago, San Francisco, and Austin. I agree with him about the last two, though in Austin's defense it wasn't like that when I was growing up there. It has lost much of its humility, in my opinion. He's also right that Houston is a more interesting city from a traditional coastal, urban center perspective. It seems strange to call Chicago overrated. That city doesn't seem to have a lot of boosters.
I agree with you here. If anything, Chicago is underrated, and the fact that the author thinks people could go to Detroit instead of Chicago for a vacation is just crazy. I like Detroit, but a day there is enough to get the vibe and see alot of what the city is about. You could spend two weeks in Chicago, having a "Ferris Bueller" vacation and not see enough of it. I think that Chicago has taken it on the chin lately, and it is so apparent from this article from a misinformed hater. The same goes for Colorado-Utah instead? Why?
The reason Chicago might not have a lot of boosters here is that they are sick of the detractors. I did not grow up in Chicago, but moved there after college from LA. There is no better place on a summers day to take in the architecture and sights, go for a walk along the beach a stone's throw from world class shopping. A drive from south Lake Shore Drive into the city is amazing- the skyline rising along the lake is simply wonderful.
Any expressions after reading the commentary for the North American cities? Agree or disagree? Why?
Ironically I disagree with David Landsel on every single one of them (for the North American ones at least), particularly because for me I find all those cities in their respective regions to be the most livable and interesting (again for me). I'll give him this though, while much of what he described about the personalities he encountered in most of those cities (cant comment on Asheville), I've noticed it too, I think he went way too much on the people everywhere rather than the actual cities itself. Hilarious stuff though.
As a reminder though, let's keep this conversation only to the North American cities he mentioned.
I'll be the only one so far that agrees with the guy, to a point. I get where he is coming from. Remember, his opinion is "as a travel destination", he's not rating the whole city or weather or not it's a good city to live in.
For all the press, hype, boosterism, real, exaggerated or imagined; it's great to here a different "negative" perspective about Austin, SF, Denver, and Vancouver. I've had a similar reaction or impression as David Landsel in either my first visit or subsequent visits to these cities -- minus Chicago, never been to Asheville.
I feel like Austin Only extremly over ratted on CD, Most people do not go walking around talking about how great Austin is. The average american would not know much more about it then it being the capital of Texas.
I'll be the only one so far that agrees with the guy, to a point. I get where he is coming from. Remember, his opinion is "as a travel destination", he's not rating the whole city or weather or not it's a good city to live in.
For all the press, hype, boosterism, real, exaggerated or imagined; it's great to here a different "negative" perspective about Austin, SF, Denver, and Vancouver. I've had a similar reaction or impression as David Landsel in either my first visit or subsequent visits to these cities -- minus Chicago, never been to Asheville.
His alternative choices -
Other Bay Area Locales over the city itself (SF). Good choice, but if it's your first visit I would not exclude the city itself.
Utah (Salt Lake) is an Excellent choice for a ski vacation, better than CO (Denver), hands down.
Other Bay Area Locales over the city itself (SF). Good choice, but if it's your first visit I would not exclude the city itself.
Utah (Salt Lake) is an Excellent choice for a ski vacation, better than CO (Denver), hands down.
I agree Utah is excellent for a ski vacation, but there are just so many other choices in Colorado, and that's why many think it's superior for skiing.
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.
I agree with you
