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.
The biggest things that stand out are Detroit has by far the least to do given its size. It's not up for debate whether Louisville or Pittsburgh are Midwest.
Notice how Chicago and the Twin Cities blow everyone else out, then there's STL with a good step up, and then everyone else is pretty much close from numbers 4-9.
This is a good indication of how cities are viewed by actual tourists and real life people, not the utopia of city data.
Hey how did you come up with those numbers? 638 and 467. im on trip advisor but can't figure out how you came up with those specific numbers.
Huh? Detroit and Windsor are separated by water; Minneapolis and St. Paul are not. Royal Oak, Dearborn, Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, etc... are all suburbs that wouldn't exist if it weren't for their core city. Minneapolis and St. Paul are considered core / central cities that literally border one another and are also surrounded by several suburbs - 300+. That said, you can't talk about Minneapolis and conveniently forget about St. Paul or vice versa
And an international border. That makes a difference.
I think one of the major flaws in looking just at city alone, is that what defines a city is not necessarily directly correlated by only it's city limits. It's city population can both over, and under exaggerate. For example, the fact that Minneapolis is allowed to add Saint Paul, it only stands to reason that the other cities should be able to draw from their respective regions as well. As per total attractions listed, I think that city perception can end up having a lot to do with what the total volume of the list is (I mean, outside perception). I'm not saying there isn't some truth in that, but it doesn't tell the story. That being said, I would say that somewhere like Greater Detroit has just as much to do or see (if not more) as does the Twin Cities, with the one exception on that being in recreational infrastructure/scenery. For Detroit, you have Ann Arbor, Windsor, Dearborn, etc. that are all very much a part of the region. The Twin Cities has nothing similar to do with either of these. Another thing that must be pointed out, is that the way that attractions are starred as attractions, is hardly consistent. For example, does anyone believe that Saint Petersburg, Russia, offers visitors twice as much to do and see, as does New York City? Not a knock on Saint Pete as a city, but really now. I hope the T.A. ratings is being used more as a one shot tool than as an absolute ruling.
Last point to make... Things to do depends on the person that is interested. Are they Historic/Cultural Attractions? Theme Park/Entertainment? Natural? Chicago clearly has the most to do and see for tourists within it's city limits out of this group, and I don't know that there's that much differentiation between the rest of them. At the same time though, the Chicago area probably lags behind at least Cleveland and Minneapolis and Pittsburgh when it comes to outdoor recreation.
Cavsfan....I am pretty sure this list includes most major attraction for metro areas....not just city...but we could always expand this. And isn't it a fact that the core city usually has 90% of the "Things to Do" anyways? I think this list proves that a few legacy cities which consider themselves vastly superior to other cities are starting to realize other cities have just as much if not more to do.
Take Cleveland for example....Lakewood is touted as a major area:
Why in the heck would you be a tourist in Cleveland or Detroit and travel out of your way to Lakewood or Novi unless you were an urban nerd (like me). Ditto for Louisville. New Albany, IN is a super cool area, but unless you're hitting the casino a bit futher out (Elizabeth, IN), why would you leave Louisville for a suburb across a bridge?
Last edited by Peter1948; 05-25-2017 at 09:03 PM..
I think what this list also shows is that much of the Midwest pales in comparison with tourist attractions looming in booming southern cities. Look at Austin
Let's keep this civil but if you live in a city and they left out major attractions for your city, list them. But maybe some of you are realizing your city doesn't offer as much to do as you thought.
I love how if this list doesn't make your city look great, then the list is flawed. I cannot think of any better way to compare attractions in cities. And what's more, what attractions are under construction in your city? There's several where I live.
Last edited by Peter1948; 05-25-2017 at 09:01 PM..
So wait a minute... because a city doesn't have as many things listed on Trip Advisor it pales in comparison with things to do? Lmao!!! So Austin has more things to do than Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta? Portland has more things to do than Miami and New Orleans and is right up there with Vegas? No, were not saying trip advisor is flawed, but your method for using it as a comparison for what city has more things to do is very flawed. Just taking a look at some of this stuff the list is missing all types of events, restaurants, bars, ect.
And another thing... metro areas are a huge part of having "things to do". Disneyland, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, ect all in suburbs of LA, South Beach is in a suburb of Miami, many popular spots on the Vegas strip is in a suburb of Vegas, mall of America is in a suburb of Minneapolis, the largest indoor/ outdoor museum in the country and largest drive in theater is in a suburb of Detroit, the casino near Chicago is in a suburb of Chicago and so is six flags. I mean these example could go on forever. I dare say most major city has a ton of attractions in suburbs, especially these days.
So wait a minute... because a city doesn't have as many things listed on Trip Advisor it pales in comparison with things to do? Lmao!!! So Austin has more things to do than Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta? Portland has more things to do than Miami and New Orleans and is right up there with Vegas? No, were not saying trip advisor is flawed, but your method for using it as a comparison for what city has more things to do is very flawed. Just taking a look at some of this stuff the list is missing all types of events, restaurants, bars, ect.
And another thing... metro areas are a huge part of having "things to do". Disneyland, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, ect all in suburbs of LA, South Beach is in a suburb of Miami, many popular spots on the Vegas strip is in a suburb of Vegas, mall of America is in a suburb of Minneapolis, the largest indoor/ outdoor museum in the country and largest drive in theater is in a suburb of Detroit, the casino near Chicago is in a suburb of Chicago and so is six flags. I mean these example could go on forever. I dare say most major city has a ton of attractions in suburbs, especially these days.
Every major city has tons of major events, bars, restaurants. Every major city is a "foodie" town now. Every single top 50 city.
So, yes, those tripadvisor lists contain a lot of what real live tourists visits in major cities.
Lets keep this list to the Midwest cities I listed.
So, for the Midwest, if you think the lists does not represent your metro, list the suburb and the "Things to Do" that are missing. People are blasting the lists yet no one can point out big time and major flaws.
From a tourist standpoint, these lists are often how your city is viewed. No, Tripadvisor isn't the Bible. Yet, it's one of the best resources I've found to show you what there is unique about a city...bars and restaurants aren't unique!
Another thing to think about is quality vs. quantity of the activities as well as cost and accessibility.
Yeah, some of the cities listed have a lot of chains and blue collar bars in run down/crime ridden areas (resulting in an artificial boosting of their numbers), whereas other cities don't have as much of that stuff, but instead more refined, more developed quality type of establishments so they are under-counted.
I think part of that is honestly just that Columbus is a newer, smaller area overall, compared to that. Columbus has a center, but then you're right, it's sort of just suburbs beyond that. Is an area, with similar population size and characteristics though, better shaped to have a consistent network of suburbs, a singularly strong urban center, or hypothetically, multiple urban centers that aren't quite as strong, but when combined are greater than their sum of parts?
Would you be able to explain how Columbus is newer than any of the other cities discussed? Thanks.
Would you be able to explain how Columbus is newer than any of the other cities discussed? Thanks.
I would guess because Columbus lacks major professional sports teams; only the Blue Jackets in the NHL, and the NHL is the least followed of the Big 4 by far. And even there the Blue Jackets are still a relatively new team in the NHL as opposed to the Penguins, Blackhawks or Bruins. Of course much of this has to do with Columbus: a. being sandwiched in between Cincinnati and Cleveland which are both major league cities and, b. being dominated by a huge college football power in Ohio State...
... I don't agree that sports should be why cities are adjudged more or less important. It's not really fair because C-Bus has lots to offer on many levels; just thinking that's why Columbus may not be foremost in posters' thoughts.
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.
