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.
Alcatraz, Fishermans Wharf, Chinatown, Cable Cars, SF hills, and Redwoods are all more iconic than anything in Chicago.
I don't think the article is accurate. I don't even know how one could measure a tourist. They're probably including someone from the suburbs who goes to the art museum or shopping or out to eat. That isn't really what we're talking about.
I know that SF has huge tourist crowds from all over the world, and Chicago tends to have fewer tourists, and they tend to be local/regional.
They are definitely including that. If somebody stays the night in Chicago from Schaumburg they are counted as a domestic tourist. The best metric to determine a cities popularity is international visitors b/c the same agency tracks them.
Alcatraz, Fishermans Wharf, Chinatown, Cable Cars, SF hills, and Redwoods are all more iconic than anything in Chicago.
Alcatraz yeah, thats on another level as is the Golden Gate Bridge. They're on a different tier than the rest of the attractions you mentioned. The type of person that knows about Chinatown in SF knows about the Loop in Chicago.
The EL is as iconic as the Cable Cars and Navy Pier is as iconic as Fisherman's Wharf. Grant Park is iconic, the Art Institute is iconic, Wrigley Field is iconic. Chicago's skyline is as iconic as SF's hills.
They are definitely including that. If somebody stays the night in Chicago from Schaumburg they are counted as a domestic tourist. The best metric to determine a cities popularity is international visitors b/c the same agency tracks them.
I have no doubt SF is more popular internationally, but thats not what I'm arguing. I'm talking about visitors downtown, adding to SF's and Chicago's vibrancy. Whether they're from Schaumburg or Soweto, they still add people to the street.
just because San Francisco is more popular internationally doesn't mean it has the bigger or more vibrant downtown. If you're looking for the biggest downtown, New York City is the obvious destination. San Francisco has a decent downtown and nice urban neighborhoods around it which is a plus, but I doubt tourists flock to San Francisco specifically because of that. San Francisco's location is photogenic and appealing tourist-wise and plus, it's in California which easy out of city trips.
I don't think these lists are horrible, but probably take out Miami, and possibly take out LA and New Orleans. Put in DC and Seattle, both of which are more vibrant than any of these three cities.
Miami's downtown isn't even as vibrant as Detroit's downtown. Maybe you mean South Beach, in neighboring Miami Beach?
LA has tons of pockets of vibrancy, but none would match Philly, DC or even Vancouver.
New Orleans has a few blocks in the French Quarter and along Canal, but overall, needs to be ranked lower.
In the second list, NYC, Hong Kong and Tokyo should be ahead of Paris and especially London. Rome should be ahead of Chicago. Berlin is not that heavy with pedestrians. Madrid is bigger and busier than Barcelona.
But I hope you're not trying to make a list of world's most vibrant/busy cities. Excepting the first five and probably Shanghai, none of the others would be strong candidates. You're missing tons of huge and vibrant cities all over the place (SP, BA, Osaka, Bangkok, Jakarta, a half-dozen Chinese cities, etc.).
-----------------------------------------
Yeah ... Your correct :
- LA, New Orleans should be out ...
- DC in
However, Miami ... I was referring to S.Beach (not a downtown)
Regarding World list ...
It is very very difficult to make a objective list because there are so many vibrant cities, and it is difficult to objectively sort . Especially when comparing people traffic
But ....
When comparing if cities are functioning 24 hrs, shops and diverse stores... Then I think the term "Vibrancy" goes to the USA Cities, because from what I noticed, other key world cities lack in this aspect
just because San Francisco is more popular internationally doesn't mean it has the bigger or more vibrant downtown. If you're looking for the biggest downtown, New York City is the obvious destination. San Francisco has a decent downtown and nice urban neighborhoods around it which is a plus, but I doubt tourists flock to San Francisco specifically because of that. San Francisco's location is photogenic and appealing tourist-wise and plus, it's in California which easy out of city trips.
Exactly. The largest attractions in SF are the Golden Gate Bridge, Fisherman's Wharf, Golden Gate Park and Alcatraz, all four are not downtown.
In SF, tourists go all over the place, The Palace of Fine Arts, The Presidio, and Wine Country. Residents are more likely to stay in their respective downtowns also. Oakland, San Jose, etc...
In Chicago, tourists visit Lincoln Park and Wrigley Field at best. Residents scatter more across the neighborhoods, but downtown Chicago still reigns supreme. I would guess a higher percentage of Metra Residents ride into town on the weekends than BART. And I would even say the same for CTA vs Muni. Just look at a map of the systems to see what would yield the most people.
Chicago is not a top 10 in the world in terms of vibrancy, probably not even in the top 25.
I'd rank the N.A. cities something like this...
NYC
Mexico City
SF
Toronto
Chicago
Montreal
Philly
Boston
DC
Seattle
--------------------------------------
1. Mexico is not N.A., It is Central
2. I don't think Toronto, and im sure San Francisco is not is more happening nor vibrant than Chicago
--------------------------------------
1. Mexico is not N.A., It is Central
2. I don't think Toronto, and im sure San Francisco is not is more happening nor vibrant than Chicago
Roberto, Mexico is North America. Central America is not a continent, and no Mexican would say they live in Central America.
Toronto, SF and Chicago are different types of vibrant, and one could make a reasonable case for any of these three cities. I would probably put Toronto as last among the three.
Toronto I could see being similar, but its hard to tell, Yonge Street is bursting with people, but its also because its too narrow of a space for its crowds. Toronto's civic leaders have downtown encompassing a ridiculous area that includes major neighborhoods, so its up in the air.
Toronto I could see being similar, but its hard to tell, Yonge Street is bursting with people, but its also because its too narrow of a space for its crowds. Toronto's civic leaders have downtown encompassing a ridiculous area that includes major neighborhoods, so its up in the air.
Yonge Street is indeed busy, as so is Queen West. But I think Chicago and SF both have more streets with pedestrian activity. Most streets in downtown Toronto are pretty empty (because they dead-end) but the main streets are extremely busy.
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.
