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.
This link I had saved, gives some insight in who same cities can differ in calculations and counts. It is on Philly by state law counts the whole multi-county metro and touches on a couple other cities.
From link:
- 41 million people is for “Greater Philadelphia.” That area, according to Visit Philly, consists of Philadelphia, Montgomery, Bucks, Chester and Delaware counties. The number for Philadelphia proper in 2015 was 25.9 million.
The data for these counts come from surveys of hundreds of thousands of people and is then compared to other indicators like visits at hotels or major landmarks, and estimated against year over year info. Visit Philly uses numerous firms to tabulate the total, including Longwoods International and Econsult Solutions.
- New York City for example. NYC & Company counts overnight visitors and day-trippers, too, using the same 50-mile or farther metric for daytime guests, but keeps its data to the five boroughs.
A daytime visitor is defined as somebody who travels more than 50 miles one way to a destination within the five-county area for business or pleasure and is not part of the normal routine. That means somebody who comes to Philly from far north Bucks County or far southwest Chester County is a visitor. And for Greater Philadelphia’s 41 million count, someone who comes from Philadelphia to upper Bucks County would count.
- Unlike Philadelphia, Washington, D.C. doesn’t count day-trippers in its methodology. It only counts overnight visitors. And in 2015 DC saw 19.3 million domestic visitors.
* So not counting "Day Trippers" seems to keep DC numbers lower? Chicago is city only and added tourist loved areas that grow its numbers. Big festivals and a Big Convention city add too. Charlotte probably counts "day trippers" and possibly the metro? But that is not given here nor with Boston.
Frankly it doesn’t matter that it was propganda the impact of the Boston massacre was the rest of the colonies reactions not the actual event. If you knew so much more about history than everyone else you’d know that.
When did I say that wasn't the case? My point was there is this propagandized view of what history in Boston is and then there is a reality. Almost everyone here views Boston as some proud crusading city against the evil British Empire. The reality is there were a few rich guys with good connections and didn't mind being slimy. Not much has changed, really.
I think you are actually physically unable to honestly respond to anything I say.
Faneuil Hall ranked 7th on a list of the 50 most-visited tourist attractions in the world, according to research by the site lovehomeswap.com.
The site pinpointed the most iconic destinations around the globe and researched how many people visit them annually. Faneuil Hall Marketplace, in 7th place, boasts 18,000,000 visitors per year.
If correct, that is one location that was visited by 18 million. Chicago has so many attractions where people can't visit them all. The 18 million does not say anything about Boston getting over 57.6 million visitors like Chicago. [
Also, the website you are referring to said NYC Times Square gets 39.2 million visitors per year when NYC official visitors bureau website says 50 million per year.
You said: there is no doubt there are way more people visiting the la region...Santa Monica, Malibu etc than visiting Chicago..
I am only quoting the numbers. And numbers don't lie.
LOL about Faneuil Hall. It's an open air mall. Most people are there to watch break dancers and some guy on a tall unicycle and go to some crappy overpriced restaurant. Oh, but it's an "American Revolution" site. No idea how they arrive at this number by the way.
When did I say that wasn't the case? My point was there is this propagandized view of what history in Boston is and then there is a reality. Almost everyone here views Boston as some proud crusading city against the evil British Empire. The reality is there were a few rich guys with good connections and didn't mind being slimy. Not much has changed, really.
I think you are actually physically unable to honestly respond to anything I say.
That is a wholly inaccurate picturee of the American Revolution. Common estimates put support for the revolution in the 75-80% range in Massachusetts by March 1775. John Adams and Paul Revere certainly were not the movers in shakers of pre Revolution Boston by the way. Only Hancock would be considered “Rich”.
Imagine how uncomfortable it would be to be forced to house some stranger (British Soldiers were also usually ruffians) in charge of disciplining you. The Quartering Act, And Coersive acts alienated the general public in Massachusetts to a great degree.
Do you know the extradition protests going on in Hong Kong today? That was one of the several issues in the Coersive acts.
That is a wholly inaccurate picturee of the American Revolution. Common estimates put support for the revolution in the 75-80% range in Massachusetts by March 1775. John Adams and Paul Revere certainly were not the movers in shakers of pre Revolution Boston by the way. Only Hancock would be considered “Rich”.
Imagine how uncomfortable it would be to be forced to house some stranger (British Soldiers were also usually ruffians) in charge of disciplining you. The Quartering Act, And Coersive acts alienated the general public in Massachusetts to a great degree.
Do you know the extradition protests going on in Hong Kong today? That was one of the issues in then Coersive acts.
Paul Revere was a personal acquaintance of Hancock and Adams and made the inflammatory engraving of the Boston "Massacre." Not influential? Ok. He was absolutely a successful businessman too, "rich" is relative. He certainly fared much better than most people, defining anyone without Hancock money as poor is pretty misleading. You're talking about the wealthiest person at the time.
Read the actual text of the Quartering Act.
I'm not saying that people didn't succeed in riling up the common man, but I am saying that the common man then, as today, didn't really know what they were all riled up about.
If NYC is leaving Chicago in the dust than where is Boston? At least developers want to build here. I mean Chicago has more skyscrapers than the state of Texas and California combined and ranks in the top 7 in the world. Boston can't fill them so no one wants to build them there.
Also, since you mentioned NYC, well the only reason NYC is so big is because of what city? Chicago.
Without Chicago: Staten Island, Queens and Brooklyn wouldn't be part of NYC.
And there's nothing wrong with Boston being on Charlotte's tourists level.
Tall buildings don’t get me as excited as they get you...Boston and Cambridge are developing like crazy..the demand is through the roof..that’s why the cost of living in Boston and it’s suburbs is much higher than in Chicago...Boston has to build way more to satisfy current demand..nyc is leaving Chicago in the dust when it comes to tall buildings as they currently have more 1000 footers under construction than Chicago does total..I love dc and other cities with no skyscrapers but I know how important they are to you
Skyscrapers important to me? Did you read my post about me visiting St. Louis, Memphis and Kansas City?Did you read my post several says ago on Kansas City vs. St. Louis? So, skyscrapers are not important to me.
You said:
and for a skyscraper obsessed city nyc is currently leaving you in the dust
I said:
Where's Boston? if NYC is leaving us in the dust than where does that put Boston? The COL is higher for a city few people wants to visit.
Boston is developing a ton they’re just not all skyscrapers ... the cost of living is ridiculous showing demand is not close to being met..,
Boston is developing a ton they’re just not all skyscrapers ... the cost of living is ridiculous showing demand is not close to being met..,
Have you ever priced a Boston hotel room? Most tourists can't afford to visit. The Boston hotels are predominantly premium business hotels. You have to get out to some hell hole like Revere before the prices drop. It doesn't have the Manhattan-level attractions to draw the $300+ room night people and the hotels are totally sold out with business travelers so they have no incentive to drop prices. The restaurants reflect that, too. When they're catering to expense report dining, you don't find much in the way of tourist-friendly cheap eats. The rents restaurants pay pretty much forces them to have upmarket pricing.
Have you ever priced a Boston hotel room? Most tourists can't afford to visit. The Boston hotels are predominantly premium business hotels. You have to get out to some hell hole like Revere before the prices drop. It doesn't have the Manhattan-level attractions to draw the $300+ room night people and the hotels are totally sold out with business travelers so they have no incentive to drop prices. The restaurants reflect that, too. When they're catering to expense report dining, you don't find much in the way of tourist-friendly cheap eats. The rents restaurants pay pretty much forces them to have upmarket pricing.
I agree they need to build more
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.
