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.
"Visitor" stats for specific attractions are highly BS-prone.
Some count paying customers as noted. Those are probably fairly reliable, though they don't always have to be. Some, like malls, can publish any number they want, and it's about the image they want to project.
Malls, streets, parks, and many other types share a huge inaccuracy: Many guesstimate everybody, every time. You live on one side of the park and work is on the other, that's 500 "visits" per year for one person. Malls also have people who visit 50 or even 350 times a year. You can bet your life on those being included in the total.
Let's not even get into the BS behind citywide visitor stats. There are so many methods, all flawed. Out of state credit card usage reported by the major provider or providers? Does that include every trucker who gets gas or lunch? Does it miss the other three people in the family? What about cash? Likewise hotel stays omit people staying with friends or family (with a tilt depending on type/size of city) and people who are really tourists but don't stay overnight.
Those stats are not BS.
I live in Chicago and I spent a month in Philly. Chicago is significantly more scenic and welcoming and, as a result, generates significantly more tourism. They’re not even in the same ballpark.
I don't really agree. Both are completely different cities in reality with their own stuff.
Well, technically every city is "completely different" with its "own stuff." I don't know how far we're supposed to extend this logic, is a tourist supposed to visit all ~40,000 cities in the USA?
Perhaps I have a different frame of opinion because I reside abroad, and have a somewhat more international perspective. I see a lot of cities around the world, and for me, while there are differences between Chicago and NYC, there are also a lot of similarities to the point I believe a tourist on a short trip can forgo one of them.
Put it this way, if a tourist has just time for one city in the USA is Chicago worth visiting? No, I'd say that has to be NYC.
If a tourist has time for just two cities, would those be NYC and Chicago? No, imo he will get more out of his trip if he goes to NYC and LA.
In fact, I'd say the first 5 cities worth visiting in the USA are NYC, LA, DC, Philadelphia and Boston. In the next 5 somewhere you can fit Chicago along with San Francisco, Las Vegas, Miami, and New Orleans. And the next 5 after that would be something like San Diego, Seattle, Charleston, Austin, Santa Fe.
And btw, I'm aware that some people will like Chicago more than NYC. While I'm not one of them, I do prefer San Francisco over NYC, but I'd never recommend San Francisco as the first city a tourist sees in the USA for obvious reasons. I prefer Chamonix over Paris, and I prefer York over London, etc. I think you get the drift.
Well, technically every city is "completely different" with its "own stuff." I don't know how far we're supposed to extend this logic, is a tourist supposed to visit all ~40,000 cities in the USA?
Perhaps I have a different frame of opinion because I reside abroad, and have a somewhat more international perspective. I see a lot of cities around the world, and for me, while there are differences between Chicago and NYC, there are also a lot of similarities to the point I believe a tourist on a short trip can forgo one of them.
Put it this way, if a tourist has just time for one city in the USA is Chicago worth visiting? No, I'd say that has to be NYC.
If a tourist has time for just two cities, would those be NYC and Chicago? No, imo he will get more out of his trip if he goes to NYC and LA.
In fact, I'd say the first 5 cities worth visiting in the USA are NYC, LA, DC, Philadelphia and Boston. In the next 5 somewhere you can fit Chicago along with San Francisco, Las Vegas, Miami, and New Orleans. And the next 5 after that would be something like San Diego, Seattle, Charleston, Austin, Santa Fe.
And btw, I'm aware that some people will like Chicago more than NYC. While I'm not one of them, I do prefer San Francisco over NYC, but I'd never recommend San Francisco as the first city a tourist sees in the USA for obvious reasons. I prefer Chamonix over Paris, and I prefer York over London, etc. I think you get the drift.
First of all, I agree that there really are only a handful of cities to visit in the US. However, your list is highly subjective because everyone visits different cities/areas for different reasons. Someone who visits for historical type of stuff might enjoy Philadelphia over Chicago for about a day or two depending on how deep their interest in historical things goes (do they just enjoy the typical stuff or do they like delving into the really deep, more unknown history too?). However, if they are going to relax while in an urban city, have great food, drinks, and take in some beautiful sights that have to do with water then I'd never recommend Philadelphia over Chicago in that circumstance (same with Boston). It's highly situational really. If you wanted beaches and to drink then I'd direct you to Miami or Honolulu over NYC. It's completely situational and subjective and putting a blanket statement on where people should visit based off of your interests is pretty naive.
A lot of what you've listed looks historical, and as I say above, not everyone is into that. I also think you overrate peoples' interest level in this stuff. If you are deep into history, then yes, Philadelphia and Boston are good. However, most people aren't deep into history. Most people want to see the typical stuff which in either of these cities can really be seen in a day. Yes, there's tons of stuff to see if you are into the deep, mundane history, but that's not most people. Most peoples' interest only goes to a handful of sites in both of those cities combined, and in reality I think that it's probably less if you are international and have no real ties to the US. I've been to numerous historical cities around the world and have come across these types of sites which are important to the country but someone from outside of said country might not care much. The typical person no matter where they are from isn't going to give one damn about seeing the house of Henry Ossawa Tanner. The US is a pretty young country with interesting history, but there's tons of "historical" sites all around the US that are pretty boring and not hugely significant to the average person, My girlfriend's parents don't even care about the historical stuff outside of the typical White House, Washington Memorial, etc type of things in the US. This extends to my girlfriend too. They've stated to me numerous times that they find US's history to be pretty small especially because they come from a country (China) with a much longer and bigger history. People in the US tend to overrate the impact of the places (i.e. people in the US actually thinking that San Francisco is a well known city in most parts of China).
In the end, this thread is actually about whether you should visit Chicago if you've visited NYC. The thread implies that NYC and Chicago are very similar and you wouldn't find it necessary to visit one if you've visited the other. And in the end, I find this implication to be pretty false. They aren't hugely different cities, but they aren't also clones of each other. If you have visited NYC before, I still think there is reason to visit Chicago as they are different, but again it depends on what you are looking for and why you visit places to begin with. As a side note, my girlfriend's parents prefer Chicago to NYC because they enjoy nature too and found the lakefront and river better than anything in NYC (including Central Park) and the food to be pretty much similar in both cities. It's the same reason why I'd actually go to somewhere like Hangzhou over Shanghai - I like the West Lake area a lot and would totally go there to unwind. Or why I'd take visiting Chengdu over Hong Kong, because I find the food to be better. It's pretty silly to put a blanket statement on anybody based off your own interests though.
First of all, I agree that there really are only a handful of cities to visit in the US. However, your list is highly subjective because everyone visits different cities/areas for different reasons. Someone who visits for historical type of stuff might enjoy Philadelphia over Chicago for about a day or two depending on how deep their interest in historical things goes (do they just enjoy the typical stuff or do they like delving into the really deep, more unknown history too?). However, if they are going to relax while in an urban city, have great food, drinks, and take in some beautiful sights that have to do with water then I'd never recommend Philadelphia over Chicago in that circumstance (same with Boston). It's highly situational really. If you wanted beaches and to drink then I'd direct you to Miami or Honolulu over NYC. It's completely situational and subjective and putting a blanket statement on where people should visit based off of your interests is pretty naive.
A lot of what you've listed looks historical, and as I say above, not everyone is into that. I also think you overrate peoples' interest level in this stuff. If you are deep into history, then yes, Philadelphia and Boston are good. However, most people aren't deep into history. Most people want to see the typical stuff which in either of these cities can really be seen in a day. Yes, there's tons of stuff to see if you are into the deep, mundane history, but that's not most people. Most peoples' interest only goes to a handful of sites in both of those cities combined, and in reality I think that it's probably less if you are international and have no real ties to the US. I've been to numerous historical cities around the world and have come across these types of sites which are important to the country but someone from outside of said country might not care much. The typical person no matter where they are from isn't going to give one damn about seeing the house of Henry Ossawa Tanner. The US is a pretty young country with interesting history, but there's tons of "historical" sites all around the US that are pretty boring and not hugely significant to the average person, My girlfriend's parents don't even care about the historical stuff outside of the typical White House, Washington Memorial, etc type of things in the US. This extends to my girlfriend too. They've stated to me numerous times that they find US's history to be pretty small especially because they come from a country (China) with a much longer and bigger history. People in the US tend to overrate the impact of the places (i.e. people in the US actually thinking that San Francisco is a well known city in most parts of China).
In the end, this thread is actually about whether you should visit Chicago if you've visited NYC. The thread implies that NYC and Chicago are very similar and you wouldn't find it necessary to visit one if you've visited the other. And in the end, I find this implication to be pretty false. They aren't hugely different cities, but they aren't also clones of each other. If you have visited NYC before, I still think there is reason to visit Chicago as they are different, but again it depends on what you are looking for and why you visit places to begin with. As a side note, my girlfriend's parents prefer Chicago to NYC because they enjoy nature too and found the lakefront and river better than anything in NYC (including Central Park) and the food to be pretty much similar in both cities. It's the same reason why I'd actually go to somewhere like Hangzhou over Shanghai - I like the West Lake area a lot and would totally go there to unwind. Or why I'd take visiting Chengdu over Hong Kong, because I find the food to be better. It's pretty silly to put a blanket statement on anybody based off your own interests though.
I think you're missing the point. We're talking about a first time visitor to the USA. They first have to hit the highlights before they hit the smaller and less famous cities. Maybe they will discover their favorite city in the USA is Anchorage, AK but have them visit the big names first to discover that.
So I'm saying that Chicago is "worth" visiting after they visited NYC, LA, DC, Boston, and Philadelphia.
And yes, I'm aware my list is somewhat subjective. But this afterall is the nature of this thread, it's asking for opinions. Everything stated here is subjective.
I'm not answering out of my own interest but rather I'm trying to come up with a list that best shows them the USA in the limited time frame they have. Me? I actually hate large cities, maybe because I live in so many of them constantly. When I have vacation time, I go to remote areas. I definitely would never go to NYC, or Chicago or LA for vacation, to me that just sounds like my present life.
I think you're missing the point. We're talking about a first time visitor to the USA. They first have to hit the highlights before they hit the smaller and less famous cities. Maybe they will discover their favorite city in the USA is Anchorage, AK but have them visit the big names first to discover that.
So I'm saying that Chicago is "worth" visiting after they visited NYC, LA, DC, Boston, and Philadelphia.
And yes, I'm aware my list is somewhat subjective. But this afterall is the nature of this thread, it's asking for opinions. Everything stated here is subjective.
I'm not answering out of my own interest but rather I'm trying to come up with a list that best shows them the USA in the limited time frame they have. Me? I actually hate large cities, maybe because I live in so many of them constantly. When I have vacation time, I go to remote areas. I definitely would never go to NYC, or Chicago or LA for vacation, to me that just sounds like my present life.
Since when does this thread have anything to do with being a first time visitor to the USA? It doesn't. Literally the only thing the OP asked was "If you visited New York City, do you think it is worth it to see Chicago?" which has nothing to do with what you're talking about. They are implying that NYC and Chicago are really similar, so you should only have the need to see one. You have taken it and skewed it into something else.
Also, I suspect when you visited Chicago that you probably didn't get outside of the actual city center too much. It's not very "big city" like for most of the city outside of the city center, outside of a few areas. One of the things I like about Chicago is that you can live in a big city, but also live in an area that's like a small, walkable town that has people around, but not crowded at all, but is still very relaxing at the same time. All this while being within a 20-30 minute train ride of a city center with a ton more activity. They don't even seem like the same city, but this is actually how the majority of Chicago is and most tourists don't actually get to see this side of Chicago as they mostly just stay in the city center. I think in your other posts, I read you are from China? Chicago is really nothing like that. Even the suburban areas of places like Shanghai, like Jinshan, are in some aspects more urban based on the fact that the density is higher due to all the high rise communities. Although it's hard to compare the two because they're so different.
Since when does this thread have anything to do with being a first time visitor to the USA? It doesn't. Literally the only thing the OP asked was "If you visited New York City, do you think it is worth it to see Chicago?" which has nothing to do with what you're talking about. They are implying that NYC and Chicago are really similar, so you should only have the need to see one. You have taken it and skewed it into something else.
I'm doing a 'small thing' that's called reading between the lines. The OP is clearly a visitor to the US and their limitation is time. If everyone had infinite time, then all ~40,000 cities would be "worth visiting." It's lack of time that requires people to prioritize.
Quote:
Also, I suspect when you visited Chicago that you probably didn't get outside of the actual city center too much. It's not very "big city" like for most of the city outside of the city center, outside of a few areas. One of the things I like about Chicago is that you can live in a big city, but also live in an area that's like a small, walkable town that has people around, but not crowded at all, but is still very relaxing at the same time. All this while being within a 20-30 minute train ride of a city center with a ton more activity. They don't even seem like the same city, but this is actually how the majority of Chicago is and most tourists don't actually get to see this side of Chicago as they mostly just stay in the city center. I think in your other posts, I read you are from China? Chicago is really nothing like that. Even the suburban areas of places like Shanghai, like Jinshan, are in some aspects more urban based on the fact that the density is higher due to all the high rise communities. Although it's hard to compare the two because they're so different.
I just don't see anything special about Chicago. NYC is a large cosmopolitan city, Chicago is not really. Nor is it quaint, or historic, or charming or next to beautiful nature. But my opinion is not important. I actually don't like NYC as well, as I stated I prefer San Francisco, but I clearly recommended NYC.
Unfortunately for me, my job forces me to be in NYC at least several months a year. I get by, but I prefer greenery, peace, and quiet.
I'm currently based out of Singapore. But the nature of my work requires me to be around the world. I'm not from China but next week I will be in Hong Kong for example. I'm from the United States actually.
I'm doing a 'small thing' that's called reading between the lines. The OP is clearly a visitor to the US and their limitation is time. If everyone had infinite time, then all ~40,000 cities would be "worth visiting." It's lack of time that requires people to prioritize.
I just don't see anything special about Chicago. NYC is a large cosmopolitan city, Chicago is not really. Nor is it quaint, or historic, or charming or next to beautiful nature. But my opinion is not important. I actually don't like NYC as well, as I stated I prefer San Francisco, but I clearly recommended NYC.
Unfortunately for me, my job forces me to be in NYC at least several months a year. I get by, but I prefer greenery, peace, and quiet.
I'm currently based out of Singapore. But the nature of my work requires me to be around the world. I'm not from China but next week I will be in Hong Kong for example. I'm from the United States actually.
I just don't see anything special about Chicago. NYC is a large cosmopolitan city, Chicago is not really. Nor is it quaint, or historic, or charming or next to beautiful nature. But my opinion is not important. I actually don't like NYC as well, as I stated I prefer San Francisco, but I clearly recommended NYC.
Unfortunately for me, my job forces me to be in NYC at least several months a year. I get by, but I prefer greenery, peace, and quiet.
I'm currently based out of Singapore. But the nature of my work requires me to be around the world. I'm not from China but next week I will be in Hong Kong for example. I'm from the United States actually.
Truthyfully when was the last time you were actually in Chicago? I can tell from your posts that you really haven't been much out of the city center and probably overrate your experience in terms of what you actually saw. I lived in Chicago for nearly a decade and now call Manhattan my home full time. Is NYC more cosmopolitan than Chicago? Of course, but Chicago also in some parts is pretty cosmopolitan nowadays (big progress especially in the last handful of years). A friend of mine from Paris first visited Chicago 6 or 7 years ago and didn't think much of it. 2 years ago he came for the second time and noted how much more cosmopolitan the city felt and how much better it felt. NYC has more of it, but NYC is also not cosmopolitan in most places - just some - people are swayed easily by what they see when they visit. It's the same reason why people think that Hong Kong is some big, shiny cosmopolitan city everywhere when it's actually not like that in most places. However, if you just experience one area then you're easily swayed into thinking a city is whatever you make it to be. I've lived in both cities, Chicago and NYC, and what you say is not accurate and your post wreaks of someone who thinks they know more than they actually do.
Also, you say you prefer greenery, peace, and quiet which Chicago has a lot more of in the actual city than NYC. Anybody who knows Chicago knows this, and you obviously don't know much of anything about Chicago.
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.
