Better Tourist Attractions: Chicago vs. Washington, DC

[the resident09]

Originally Posted by BigLake

I think you're getting the overt pushback because you're just coming on too strong and brusk. I posted this earlier that i am *astonished* that people think DC is a better tourist destination than Chicago. Once you get beyond the monuments and museums, it simply isn't that terribly interesting of a city. It's my opinion, but many share. Chicago -- to me-- and my opinion (and why I voted as such) is incredibly more compelling overall. I was surprised to see the disparity in voting, but I can accept it since Washington D.C. is an incredibly interesting place to visit for museums and monuments. It's the seat of government for the most powerful country in the world. The entrails of that alone make it a special place.

I think poster mwj (?) put it best earlier in this thread by making the comment that DC is the better option for a first, short visit to see the great monuments and museums, but Chicago is better suited for the longer, repeat visits, because ultimately, it simply offers more (culture, nightlife, neighborhoods, dining, pure scale of the city). I respect however if someone chooses to disagree. (I did notice you seem to acknowledge as much in your post).

In transparency, I live in Chicago but am very familiar with Washington DC as in a prior job I visited probably 15 times for extended periods. It's not like I am making my assessment in vacuum, but I will admit biases.

Good points, I can respect all of this.

[Veritas Vincit]

Originally Posted by CCrest182

33%/66% is a "landslide"?

We've already gone over why C-D polls are flawed. Most people voting probably didn't even read OP's criteria.... which includes neighborhoods, restaurants, festivals, and more.... where Chicago dominates.

So we're clear, we agree DC wins on guided tours, museums, and history. And parks are perhaps a draw. Outside of that, Chicago wins on the rest of the criteria, and yes, by a decent margin.

Yes a 2 to 1 ratio in votes is considered a landslide. No presidential candidate in the 20th or 21st century achieved that level of support. Not FDR in 1936, not Nixon in 1972, LBJ in 1964 or Reagan in 1984..and all of those were called landslide victories.


And there's nothing flawed about the poll in this case. It's a simple question and reading articles or seeing Chicago posters repeat 50 times how awesome their neighborhoods are isn't going to change things.


And yes D.C. would not be in the top 50 tourism destinations if it wasn't the U.S. capital...primarily because it wouldn't exist as a city if it wasn't. It being the capital, and thus having all the monuments, historical buildings, museums etc. is kind of an integral part of what makes it a city and thus can't really be separated from it. It is what it is.


I think Chicago - traditionally - had a lot of things going for it that D.C. doesn't really have, but I've been told by Chicago natives that Chicago has become very yuppified and lost some of its character as a result of the gentrification.

[CCrest182]

Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit

Yes a 2 to 1 ratio in votes is considered a landslide. No presidential candidate in the 20th or 21st century achieved that level of support. Not FDR in 1936, not Nixon in 1972, LBJ in 1964 or Reagan in 1984..and all of those were called landslide victories.

No, it is not. By definition, a "landslide" win is an "overwhelming" majority. 66%/34% is not "overwhelming. Overwhelming would be 92%/8%. And there's certainly been several polls like that on C-D (mostly dumb threads with obvious answers). This thread topic is very much so worth a debate.