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.
Yeah, but the thing is, you actually don't, and if we're talking mainline tourist spots, "everything" doesn't spread out.
Mainstream tourist destinations are overwhelmingly within a 50 square mile radius (between the L.A. river and West Hollywood), which is connected by top-tier mass transit. If a tourist had a really detailed itinerary that included hikes, obscure attractions, and a stop at each beach community in the county, they would likely need a car.
Even outside that 50 mile radius, you have maybe the most popular tourist beach in the country with a direct rail connection to downtown. Metro has direct bus connections to the Getty from Santa Monica (which means its all free because you didn't park).
That's not really fair though. Playing Devil's advocate, there are only a handful of cities that provide a truly unique experience.
The same standard being used for Dallas can be applied to just about any city.
Apart from a few cities Like NY, LA, Las Vegas, Disney world... most cities are interchangeable.
I think this is where Austin separates from the other major Texas cities. Lots of outdoor and water stuff right in the middle of the city. Does it make it a tourist destination though? Not necessarily
Visitors going for various reasons like family or work isn't the same as someone genuinely flying to Dallas to check out Millennium Tower and hot new restaurants in Uptown.
Agreed, those are different things, but the reasons for people visiting doesn't detract from being a destination. There's some gatekeeping with the definition of 'destination' here, with very narrow views being imposed on the term. Visiting for family, work, conferences all count.
I also get the sense that some folks here just don't like Dallas, and perhaps think it's a cultural wasteland (e.g. comments about strip malls and freeways). Freakonomics did an interesting podcast on Dallas last year and how it's on a trajectory to eclipse Chicago as the 3rd largest US metro. There's more diversity and culture in Dallas than is often assumed. If someone can't find interesting things to see and do in a city of +7M people that's on them, not the city.
Agreed, those are different things, but the reasons for people visiting doesn't detract from being a destination. There's some gatekeeping with the definition of 'destination' here, with very narrow views being imposed on the term. Visiting for family, work, conferences all count.
I also get the sense that some folks here just don't like Dallas, and perhaps think it's a cultural wasteland (e.g. comments about strip malls and freeways). Freakonomics did an interesting podcast on Dallas last year and how it's on a trajectory to eclipse Chicago as the 3rd largest US metro. There's more diversity and culture in Dallas than is often assumed. If someone can't find interesting things to see and do in a city of +7M people that's on them, not the city.
Yes, but I also get the sense that some will defend the middle American cities because they don't like the coastal cities?
We can keep this pretty objective. I visit my parents in Tyler often, doesn't mean it's a destination. Objectivity wise, I think a place like New Orleans or even Asheville is a better time than Dallas.
I don't dislike Dallas. I think it's growing like crazy for good reason and yea, it will pass Chicago soon. Thing is, I'm not sure people outside of Dallas, or this board, really care?
I guess my question to you is what makes Dallas unique, from a tourist standpoint?
I'm different from a tourist standpoint. I don't like going to large cities for vacation. I am back to traveling every week for my job and it's always a big city. I had work in Denver and Omaha a few weeks back and actually drove between the two instead of flying. It was honestly one of the most enjoyable experiences I had in a long time. I stopped in Grand Island, did some bar hopping, chatted the locals, and went to a cute coffee shop. Id rather that than be in NYC, SF, or Boston at this point in my life.
But if youre talking most people:
All around: NYC, LA, SF, Chicago, DC, and Boston.
For Nature: Denver, Seattle, Salt Lake City, and Arizona
For Partying: Miami, Vegas, New Orleans
For the Family: Orlando, Fort Myers, and Tampa
For specific Niche Groups: Atlanta and Houston (African Americans), Austin, Portland, and Ashville (white liberals), Nashville (white conservatives).
Cities I couldn't place but would probably go somewhere: Dallas, San Antonio, Minneapolis, Detroit, San Diego, and Philly.
Disclaimer: This is only who seems to visit the cities. Not what they are or who mostly resides in them.
I'm different from a tourist standpoint. I don't like going to large cities for vacation. I am back to traveling every week for my job and it's always a big city. I had work in Denver and Omaha a few weeks back and actually drove between the two instead of flying. It was honestly one of the most enjoyable experiences I had in a long time. I stopped in Grand Island, did some bar hopping, chatted the locals, and went to a cute coffee shop. Id rather that than be in NYC, SF, or Boston at this point in my life.
But if youre talking most people:
All around: NYC, LA, SF, Chicago, DC, and Boston.
For Nature: Denver, Seattle, Salt Lake City, and Arizona
For Partying: Miami, Vegas, New Orleans
For the Family: Orlando, Fort Myers, and Tampa
For specific Niche Groups: Atlanta and Houston (African Americans), Austin, Portland, and Ashville (white liberals), Nashville (white conservatives).
Cities I couldn't place but would probably go somewhere: Dallas, San Antonio, Minneapolis, Detroit, San Diego, and Philly.
Disclaimer: This is only who seems to visit the cities. Not what they are or who mostly resides in them.
Yes, but I also get the sense that some will defend the middle American cities because they don't like the coastal cities?
We can keep this pretty objective. I visit my parents in Tyler often, doesn't mean it's a destination. Objectivity wise, I think a place like New Orleans or even Asheville is a better time than Dallas.
I don't dislike Dallas. I think it's growing like crazy for good reason and yea, it will pass Chicago soon. Thing is, I'm not sure people outside of Dallas, or this board, really care?
I guess my question to you is what makes Dallas unique, from a tourist standpoint?
I don't dislike coastal cities, I just don't think they're the end-all be-all.
This thread is about being a destination, not a tourist hot spot. Even so, there is a lot of tourism to Dallas from the neighboring region (again, tourism is the 10th largest industry in Dallas). I expect there will be those that say these aren't "real" tourists because they aren't from far away places, and again we're back to gatekeeping and overly narrow definitions.
I think this is where Austin separates from the other major Texas cities. Lots of outdoor and water stuff right in the middle of the city. Does it make it a tourist destination though? Not necessarily
Idk about that. I live in Texas and I would not visit Austin for its core so I doubt people from other states and the world beyond are visiting for the core. It's an amenity that is a plus for residents but visiting for it though?
Of the major Texas cities the only one that separates itself in terms of attractions in the core is San Antonio. The Riverwalk is a unique experience and the Alamo is a few steps away and the street outside of it is very touristy with tourist traps like Ripley's and such. There are also historic spatterings, churches and Governor's palaces and such all over the core for those interested in that.
Idk about that. I live in Texas and I would not visit Austin for its core so I doubt people from other states and the world beyond are visiting for the core. It's an amenity that is a plus for residents but visiting for it though?
Of the major Texas cities the only one that separates itself in terms of attractions in the core is San Antonio. The Riverwalk is a unique experience and the Alamo is a few steps away and the street outside of it is very touristy with tourist traps like Ripley's and such. There are also historic spatterings, churches and Governor's palaces and such all over the core for those interested in that.
San Antonio has actually unique attractions.
Id throw Fort Worth in there in the "unique attractions in Texas" category.
Though I don't know that Id call San Antonio or Fort Worth Destination cities.
Id throw Fort Worth in there in the "unique attractions in Texas" category.
Though I don't know that Id call San Antonio or Fort Worth Destination cities.
I was thinking downtown FW, but I have not been in the last few years and I hear it has gone downhill. Since I have not been recently to confirm, I just didn't mention it.
But yeah, I would say that Fort Worth as a whole is the more interesting part of the metro.
Apart from the stockyards it has probably the best zoo in the state. The botanical gardens too is one of the best in the state. The Japanese gardens are very picturesque.
Fort Worth has lots of elements that gives it character despite the rapid growth.
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.
