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.
Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and the Sunset Strip aren't attractions. One is a large neighborhood, one is a city, and the other is a mile-long commercial corridor. They are part of the urban fabric of Los Angeles. Each has attractions, but that's not the same thing
Ok, but then Las Vegas is an urban attraction too. The Strip is "part of the urban fabric of Las Vegas". Pretty much every tourist city in the U.S., excepting Orlando, is an urban attraction, using your perspective.
To me, an "urban attraction" is one that involves city centers, walkability, public transportation and the like. Not driving Sunset Strip through the suburban hills of the Westside. LA isn't really known for anything around downtown, and the visitor experience isn't typically by foot or public transit.
LA and SF also have world class orchestras, museums, and theater. Not to mention a full-compliment of professional major league sports organizations. Both are primary business centers. Both have numerous entertainment districts. None of that is true of New Orleans. It is a great city to visit for its party atmosphere, but that is a relatively limited experience.
None of this has anything to do with walkability or urbanity. I don't see what a "world class orchestra" has to do with an urban destination. I don't really agree anyways, in that neither LA or SF has comparable orchestras, museums or theater as somewhere like NYC.
Venice or Florence don't have a "world class orchestra", while Cleveland does. Yet Venice and Florence are huge tourist destinations, and extremely urban, and Cleveland isn't. I'm not getting the connection. One can have sprawl, yet world class orchestras, museums and theater, and you can have fantastic urbanity, and none of these things. Cleveland's art museum is much better than any art museum in LA or SF, BTW.
Ok, but then Las Vegas is an urban attraction too. The Strip is "part of the urban fabric of Las Vegas". Pretty much every tourist city in the U.S., excepting Orlando, is an urban attraction, using your perspective.
To me, an "urban attraction" is one that involves city centers, walkability, public transportation and the like. Not driving Sunset Strip through the suburban hills of the Westside. LA isn't really known for anything around downtown, and the visitor experience isn't typically by foot or public transit.
I guess I imagined all those tourists walking around Beverly Hills, Hollywood and Sunset Boulevard, Melrose Avenue, Old Pasadena, LA Live, Venice, Santa Monica, etc. Thanks for setting me straight with unique logic of yours. I'm surprised you didn't list bagels, brown brick buildings, and pizza pies as necessary "urban attractions". LA would be really screwed then.
Quote:
I don't really agree anyways, in that neither LA or SF has comparable orchestras
None of this has anything to do with walkability or urbanity. I don't see what a "world class orchestra" has to do with an urban destination. I don't really agree anyways, in that neither LA or SF has comparable orchestras, museums or theater as somewhere like NYC.
Venice or Florence don't have a "world class orchestra", while Cleveland does. Yet Venice and Florence are huge tourist destinations, and extremely urban, and Cleveland isn't. I'm not getting the connection. One can have sprawl, yet world class orchestras, museums and theater, and you can have fantastic urbanity, and none of these things. Cleveland's art museum is much better than any art museum in LA or SF, BTW.
I'm not sure what walkability would have to do with the matter. My reference to an urban experience relates to the ability of a visitor to experience, at the highest level, the complete range of amenities typically associated with a large urban center. Acapulco and Cannes are certainly destination cities, but not for the same reasons as Hong Kong or Barcelona.
Venice and Milan have several centuries of cultural relevance, world class architecture and art museums, and a better classical music scene than you're probably aware of. But, if it's any consolation, I would suggest that these are also cities (Venice, at least) which tend to be visited for reasons other than a complete urban experience. That is to say that visitors to Venice generally are not seeking the same type of overall experience they would expect to find in London, Paris, Tokyo, or New York.
My friends in Cleveland will appreciate your plug. The Cleveland Orchestra is indeed one of the greatest in the world, and The Cleveland Museum of Art is excellent--although, debatably, not to the level of The SFMOMA, De Young, Getty, and MOCA.
Again, my point is that there are some cities which are "destination cities" because they provide a vast array of possible experiences to meet a vast array of different interests. There are other cities which are popular destinations because they meet a niche leisure interest: sun and beaches, casinos and pop music shows, amusement parks, intense partying, etc.
I guess I imagined all those tourists walking around Beverly Hills, Hollywood and Sunset Boulevard, Melrose Avenue, Old Pasadena, LA Live, Venice, Santa Monica, etc. Thanks for setting me straight with unique logic of yours. I'm surprised you didn't list bagels, brown brick buildings, and pizza pies as necessary "urban attractions". LA would be really screwed then.
New York
LA
SF
Orlando
Miami
SD
LV
Orlando
DC
Boston
IMO Chicago doesn't belong in that list because it's mostly a fly through/connection/domestic city, truly an under dog to international fame.
Chicago had almost 50 Million tourists in 2013, set summer records in 2014, had a record 87 percent occupancy rate last summer, has the number one rated museum in the world (the Art Institute) and is about to open numerous more hotels this year. It might be fly through for you, but obviously not for everybody else.
[quote=Calisonn;38054498]LOL of all people why are you arguing with some guy from NOLA about LA's so called lack of urbanity, LA kills NOLA in urban experience and then some.[/QUOTE
]
When New Orleans was a Port City of vice and lawlessness, L.A. was merely a cow pasture and even though L.A. has grown more than any other city while New Orleans has remained stagnant, it's very much comical to say L.A. kills New Orleans in urban experience today.
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.
