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 Dupont/Logan/U Street are all pretty integrated. But, walking from the Mall or Penn Quarter to them you would probably spend most of your time walking through a 9-5 office district. Same with walking from say H Street to Eastern Market or H Street to Galley Place or Georgetown to Penn Quarter.
In a city like Bos or Philly most of there is just a lot more stuff clustered right in the central area. You can pretty easily walk Newberry to Boston Common to DTX to Quincy Market to North End and be in lively, active pedestrian environments the whole time.
DC is a great city, easily one of the top 6 most traditionally urban. But, IMO it just doesn't flow as naturally as more downtown-centric cities. Of course, the flip side is there are more vibrant areas to explore than a place like Philly or Bos...where you can hit most of the big stuff on a 30-40 min walk.
LA is easily the #2 city in size, importance, and global prominence.
I don't think it is a question of bias, as much as a disagreement over what attributes constitute a showcase city. LA isn't really a city that you can "lose yourself in" the way you can in London, Paris, NYC. Just set on foot, explore lots of little neighborhood shops, stop at a cafe along the way, maybe read in a park and sock up the street life, architecture.
Of course, no US city really can rivals those ones. But, I would say SF is probably closer to that model than LA, despite being far smaller, and less important.
Clearly if size and sheer quantity of stuff is the key metric, then yeah LA wins in by a mile. Houston is far more of a showcase city than Boston, etc.
LA is easily the #2 city in size, importance, and global prominence.
While all of that is true it doesn't really seem to have much to do with the OP. It seems the OP is asking what city showcases the best for international tourists. Considering how difficult LA is to get around, especially without a car, and how unattractive a lot of areas are at the street level I'm surprised so many people are as adamant as they are that it's America's #2 showcase city for international tourists. Places like Honolulu, San Diego, New Orleans, etc.."showcase" much better for tourists than other cities a lot larger and more important than them.
LA is easily the #2 city in size, importance, and global prominence.
That really wasn't the OP's question.
Los Angeles can be near the top of cities for what they did ask about, though it's a mixed bag. For tourists, a lot of the super obvious places they're going to visit are actually outside the City of Los Angeles itself. As far as neighborhoods go in the city of Los Angeles visitors will probably check out Hollywood Blvd(sort of disappointing), possibly Venice Beach area, possibly the Wilshire area around the museums and La Brea Tar pits and maybe somewhere around downtown(Olvera Street/Chinatown--possibly). I don't know how many tourists would go to areas like Koreatown or other parts of mid-Wilshire or downtown(though this might be slowly changing for downtown) or somewhere like Silverlake or Echo Park or anywhere in the southern parts of Los Angeles. Maybe a stop at the Getty museums too or a drive down Sunset Blvd or to Malibu.
In comparison though, San Francisco gets visitors who spend most of their time in the neighborhoods from Union Square to Nob Hill to Chinatown to North Beach to Fisherman's Wharf(with trips out to Golden Gate Park and the Golden Gate Bridge and maybe Haight Ashbury)--in a way though the city neighborhoods themselves are kind of the main attraction.
A lot of people going on vacation to Los Angeles(especially those with families) just think of a trip to LA as Disneyland and Universal Studios(and maybe Magic Mountain) with maybe a stop in Santa Monica or Venice to go to the beach(maybe going to Long Beach to see the Queen Mary). That was basically my experience as a kid in Northern California taking occasional vacations to Southern California---it wasn't until I was an adult that I really started to appreciate Los Angeles for the city that it really is. In a way I think a lot of Los Angeles is best appreciated by those with a sense of the quirky--in a way how downtown was pre-gentrification was pretty fascinating for the second largest city in the US and there's a lot of neighborhoods that are interesting for someone with a taste for architecture that are right under your nose blocks away from more touristy spots.
It's a great city for ethnic food and classic joints too, and I think though in general with the rise of all this "foodie" tourism shows like Anthony Bourdain and magazines there's a lot more people who travel to check out local food spots that aren't necessarily touristy to begin with(though they often become so). But there's still a smaller number of that breed of tourists though it's definitely growing market.
But most tourists only go to the landmarks. Even in New York City, the Statue of Liberty, Empire State Building, Times Square, Rockefeller Center, World Trade Center and such are the major tourist draws.
That's not true. A lot of people go to the West Village, East Village, SoHo, Little Italy, Lower East Side, Chinatown, Tribeca, Chelsea, Washington Square, Union Square, etc. Even Harlem offers guided tours.
That's not true. A lot of people go to the West Village, East Village, SoHo, Little Italy, Lower East Side, Chinatown, Tribeca, Chelsea, Washington Square, Union Square, etc. Even Harlem offers guided tours.
Yeah, on my junior high class trip to New York back in the 90s the tour bus took us to Harlem to eat at Sylvia's and take pictures of the Apollo Theatre.
That's not true. A lot of people go to the West Village, East Village, SoHo, Little Italy, Lower East Side, Chinatown, Tribeca, Chelsea, Washington Square, Union Square, etc. Even Harlem offers guided tours.
Because of the way New York City is laid out, pretty much everything most people will see is densely packed onto one island with millions of people. So, I think that some tourists may be in those places you mentioned more incidentally rather than as "destination" neighborhoods.
For example, they might be dining or shopping there or just passing through. I've done that several times in most of those places myself. Still, that is not where the crowds of tourists are, such as Broadway. I like to go to Little Italy a lot though.
I can understand the Harlem tours, since it is more famous and iconic.
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.
