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.
have you been to any other city other than Denver and S.F? Seriously ranking S.F in the ranks of London, Paris, Bangkok, Cairo, Istanbul etc etc is somewhat laughable.
I haven't even been to SF yet. I travel often though. And I've actually lived in NY for about 1.5 years, so yes. I've been outside of Denver plenty of times.
I didn't claim SF was on the level of those cities, but Vancover and Seattle have a long way to go in order to become a SF.
I haven't even been to SF yet. I travel often though. And I've actually lived in NY for about 1.5 years, so yes. I've been outside of Denver plenty of times.
I didn't claim SF was on the level of those cities, but Vancover and Seattle have a long way to go in order to become a SF.
I am not disagreeing with you but how about show some evidence and explain WHY.
You were the one who said any city can try but yes of the 3 in here definitely S.F is head and shoulders above as a tourist destination and I've been to all 3. I was most disappointed with Vancouver. Aside from its natural beauty I don't see why people extol the virtues of it as a touristic city. Better to rent a car and see the sights outside it.
S.F you could spend a week in and still see more its such a great urban city with excellent landmarks and attractions not to mention a plethora of wonderful nabe's - not to mention renting a car and driving to the wine valleys and Yosemite
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mezter
I haven't even been to SF yet. I travel often though. And I've actually lived in NY for about 1.5 years, so yes. I've been outside of Denver plenty of times.
I didn't claim SF was on the level of those cities, but Vancover and Seattle have a long way to go in order to become a SF.
I am not disagreeing with you but how about show some evidence and explain WHY.
I just don't see Seattle & Vancouver as vacation spots (currently). They can try to be what SF is now as a tourist spot, but I don't think they'll be world class tourist destinations like SF.
See I make a distinction between a great vacation spot and a great urban vacation spot. For example, Luxor in Egypt is a great vacation spot.. it has the Luxor temple and the Valley of the Kings. Same thing with Siem Reap Cambodia due to Angkor Wat - I mean truly AMAZING Vacation places. However not so much as Amazing Urban destinations.
Vancouver is nestled into some of the most scenic and beautiful places anywhere.. so if I go to Vancouver i'm going to be getting out of the city to appreciate the beauty of British Columbia - not to amaze myself in a great urban vacation spot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mezter
I just don't see Seattle & Vancouver as vavation spots (currently). They can try to be what SF is now as a tourist spot, but I don't think they'll be world class tourist destinations like SF.
Doesn't Vancouver already receive more international tourists than San Francisco?
As for Seattle, I don't see it ever becoming as big of a tourist destination as San Francisco.
Vancouver gets a lot of international visitors(not just standard tourists)--though a lot of them are Mainland Chinese looking to buy high rise condo real estate as investments... Used to be Hong Kong Chinese and Taiwanese now it's the elites of the Communist Party buying up Vancouver. If you have enough money, Canada welcomes all.
You were the one who said any city can try but yes of the 3 in here definitely S.F is head and shoulders above as a tourist destination and I've been to all 3. I was most disappointed with Vancouver. Aside from its natural beauty I don't see why people extol the virtues of it as a touristic city. Better to rent a car and see the sights outside it.
S.F you could spend a week in and still see more its such a great urban city with excellent landmarks and attractions not to mention a plethora of wonderful nabe's - not to mention renting a car and driving to the wine valleys and Yosemite
I just meant that any city (that isn't already of SF's stature or higher) can try to be a tourist destination, but it might not match up to what SF is, including Seattle & Vancouver.
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.
but yes of the 3 in here definitely S.F is head and shoulders above as a tourist destination and I've been to all 3. I was most disappointed with Vancouver. Aside from its natural beauty I don't see why people extol the virtues of it as a touristic city. Better to rent a car and see the sights outside it. 
