Cities that people consider boring but really are not

[kcmo]

Kansas City has several by itself.

The National World War I Memorial and Museum is fantastic and something that would easily be one of the top attractions in DC, if it were in DC.

The Negro League Baseball Museum is an incredible museum and if it were in Boston or even Atlanta, it be a top attraction and be more well known throughout the country.

The Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts is a building that can stand up to national and world known performing arts structures and if it were in a city like LA or NYC, the building would become a national icon. Instead, few people know it exist.

The Nelson Art Gallery would be be a major, well known museum if it were in Philly.

As mentioned, St Louis has many. Forest Park is one of this country's best large urban city parks. The park itself should be in the top 3-4, but it includes many attractions like the art museum, zoo and muni.

St Louis has one of the better science museums, one of the better zoos and a great botanical gardens, all of which would rival the best of the best in the country.

The City Museum is one of the most unique places in the country. If only it were in San Francisco! The Arch is well known, but generally an afterthought when you have the Space Needle and Washington Monument.

Omaha has one of the best zoos in the country. Sorry San Diego, San Antonio etc. Great zoos, but not as good as Omaha. Just way more crowded and way more expensive. The "National" Zoo is highly overrated and the Baltimore Zoo is just plain terrible. The Kansas City Zoo is better than the DC Zoo.

St Louis puts on a better 4th of July fireworks show than DC does. Yea, doesn't make sense to me either. Louisville does a better annual fireworks show than anything on the east coast, even NYC.

I find places like Milwaukee, St Louis, Columbus etc have more and larger local festivals than most big coastal cities.

I'm not saying "flyover" cities are amazing. I'm saying they are generally overlooked, if not totally ignored by people on the coasts and they often have more to offer at least in specific areas.

While collectively, living near DC, Baltimore, NYC, Philly, mountains and oceans is awesome. The stand alone cities of the midwest tend to punch way above their weight and are certainly not boring and actually quite worthy of a visit.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by kcmo

I'm not saying "flyover" cities are amazing. I'm saying they are generally overlooked, if not totally ignored by people on the coasts and they often have more to offer at least in specific areas.

While collectively, living near DC, Baltimore, NYC, Philly, mountains and oceans is awesome. The stand alone cities of the midwest tend to punch way above their weight and are certainly not boring and actually quite worthy of a visit.

I think that's a very fair point. A lot of coastal folks tend to be very dismissive of our nation's vast inland.

People tend to forget that, no matter where civilizations have settled, people always strive towards building great cultural institutions, nice and interesting neighborhoods, and all around good cities, etc. To think that these attributes would be limited to a coastal locale is rather silly and illogical.

For the record, I loved visiting the St. Louis arch. You really can't find similar experience on the East Coast.

[Wanderlove]

Omaha, NE-yep seriously. I would have never believed that either!

[ZonaZoo]

If you think San Diego is boring, then you've really never lived in a place that's truly boring.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

[trailtramp]

Alborquerque...no never mind, dull as a box of rocks.

[T. Damon]

I loved St. Louis and Kansas City when I visited both of these cities for the first time this summer- nothing boring about either of them at all!