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.
Chicago is a great to visit as a foreigner or a domestic traveller. They both do well and are two of my favorites. It's just that Chicago doesn't offer much more then what can do in NYC so why put both when you have to select five. DC would make more sense.
I get that. But why would you put DC over Boston and Philly? My point isn't to say Chicago is a top 5 for sure, my point is if someone is making an argument to learn about US history I think Boston and Philly are better cities for that. If part of your list of 5 is for monuments and museums, then I can see DC being there in the top 5.
This whole argument spurred because someone was stating to put in DC for history purposes. I was just saying I think Philly and Boston should come before it.
I totally understand why someone wouldn't include Chicago in the top 5 even though for my list I would. My argument lies more between Boston-DC-Philly for historical cities.
I get that. But why would you put DC over Boston and Philly? My point isn't to say Chicago is a top 5 for sure, my point is if someone is making an argument to learn about US history I think Boston and Philly are better cities for that. If part of your list of 5 is for monuments and museums, then I can see DC being there in the top 5.
This whole argument spurred because someone was stating to put in DC for history purposes. I was just saying I think Philly and Boston should come before it.
Like I said earlier I could see Boston or Philly filling the spot as well but I think due to DC being the home of Obama and with the White House getting blown up in every other movie DC is probably more famous and most of the activities in DC are also free.
Like I said earlier I could see Boston or Philly filling the spot as well but I think due to DC being the home of Obama and with the White House getting blown up in every other movie DC is probably more famous and most of the activities in DC are also free.
The United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence are housed in Washington DC.
You can see both, some of the most important documents on the planet and definitely some of the most influential on the planet, are in Washington DC. Several countries across the global map have shaped their constitutions and declaration of independence to mirror the one of the United States. Some countries even have Fourth of July set as their independence day.
Even though the Declaration of Independence was created and signed in Philadelphia, it is now in Washington DC, the capital of the United States.
Washington is a great city, it has a very good mix of food scenes, has plenty of public spaces for outdoors recreation with the greenbelts and parks (as well as proximity to areas like Shenandoah and the Chesapeake Bay), has a pretty good nightlife scene, an extensive (for American standards) public transport network, and has some of the most iconic structures on Earth (White House, United States Capitol, the Supreme Court, the Lincoln Memorial, so on and so forth).
I think it is telling that when you visit the United States Capitol building, regardless of what time of year you visit, you'll always see foreign schools touring it. Lots of students, everywhere.
It is only my opinion but I don't see Boston and those other cities suggested as alternatives offering foreigners the same amount of stuff to do and see. Definitely not the same scale on the impact meter, that is for sure.
The United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence are housed in Washington DC.
You can see both, some of the most important documents on the planet and definitely some of the most influential on the planet, in Washington DC.
Even though the Declaration of Independence was created and signed in Philadelphia, it is now in Washington DC, the capital of the United States.
Washington is a great city, it has a very good mix of food scenes, has plenty of public spaces for outdoors recreation with the greenbelts and parks (as well as proximity to areas like Shenandoah and the Chesapeake Bay), has a pretty good nightlife scene, and has some of the most iconic structures on Earth (White House, United States Capitol, the Supreme Court, the Lincoln Memorial, so on and so forth).
I think it is telling that when you visit the United States Capitol building, regardless of what time of year you visit, you'll always see foreign schools touring it.
It is only my opinion but I don't see Boston and those other cities suggested as alternatives offering foreigners the same amount of stuff to do and see.
New York, then San Francisco, then more distantly Boston. Due to geopolitics, Washington is constantly in the news headlines and on BBC articles. People absolutely know Washington and what it stands for and they even know some sites in the city.
Los Angeles is also very popular among some, but it appears to have just as many haters as lovers here it seems like. Some people here, out of ignorance I would imagine, don't view it as a sophisticated and cultured city. Even though it is a powerhouse cultural center for America. Miami would come next but its popularity appears to be more limited, rather than widespread. Las Vegas after that but its appeal is lower here. Orlando isn't as big here as it is for people in the Americas (both North America and South America), we have a Disneyland themepark in Paris. So that takes care of that.
Beyond that, people here do have an idea of other large American cities but all they really know is that it is big and in America. That's about it.
I would say New York and San Francisco appear to be the most popular American cities here by far, Boston would close out a big three on public perception here, I'd say.
Hmmm that's interesting that San Francisco is so highly regarded in London, I guess with the tech boom, I could see why. I'm not surprised that Boston is on the radar for people in London, it's a city that has a lot of roots/connections to the UK. Chicago doesn't surprise me, it's in the center of the country and it's not a cultural hub. I wouldn't be surprised of Britts thought of Chicago the same way Americans think of Toronto (nothing really special). I would think that Seattle would be on the radar to a certain extent but I might be wrong. I mean that's where the all so famous British novel 50 shades of grey took place lol
Like I said earlier I could see Boston or Philly filling the spot as well but I think due to DC being the home of Obama and with the White House getting blown up in every other movie DC is probably more famous and most of the activities in DC are also free.
And I agree to disagree.
This is splitting hairs, but if someone is interested in Obama, Chicago is a better place to see his actual real house (albeit can't go in but you can't go in the white house either, you can see where he taught which is close to his home and world famous university, where his wife went to high school, and to see the Obama Presidential Library once it's completed which is also going to be close to his house.
Anyway, I think the numbers speak for themselves, that DC is the 8th most visited city and Chicago 9th by foreign visitors. So either Chicago does a good job in that its close to DC in that regard, or we are overplaying people's interest in wanting to visit DC if Chicago is so unappealing.
I'm not understanding what you can do in Chicago that you can't do in the other cities, which is why I would suggest DC. I get all of the other cities as they offer unique weather, experiences, outings, culture etc. I would understand Miami, Philly or Boston as well and mind you I think Chicago is a great city.
Because Chicago represents one of the major cultural regions within the US. NYC, covers the mid-atlantic and northeast, SF covers northern west, LA covers socal and the southwest, and New Orleans covers the south.
It depends on what those overseas visitors are in each city for.
For example, Chicago is a major corporate power. It absolutely excels at that and it is highly regarded as one of the largest convention cities in all of America.
So are Atlanta and Houston. I would go as far as saying, even though I have zero proof or evidence for it, that 90% of the visitors Atlanta or Houston get from overseas are either there due to corporate collaborations and projects, due to major conventions, or to visit family and friends that live there. These aren't really cities that people are paying $2,180 (minimum per person) to cross the Atlantic and see because they heard these cities were so happening, no offense to these cities but just saying.
I'm not saying Chicago is exactly Atlanta and Houston, it is a competent city with much to offer everyone in every age group but I suspect that most visitors to Chicago, even from overseas are there for corporate reasons, conventions, and family/friends. It is not exactly an iconic city, a city with sites and landmarks that are known the world on over, or a city that has offerings and amenities that cannot already be had in New York. This makes Chicago a very underrated city, someone upthread mentioned that people are "pleasantly surprised after seeing Chicago." Well yeah, most people outside of America don't know a great deal about it other than it being a big and important American city, so when they do see the city and all it has to offer, they are surprised that such a large city has such a quiet profile globally. Either that or that the city is significantly better than its crime reputation would have you believe.
It depends on what those overseas visitors are in each city for.
For example, Chicago is a major corporate power. It absolutely excels at that and it is highly regarded as one of the largest convention cities in all of America.
So are Atlanta and Houston. I would go as far as saying, even though I have zero proof or evidence for it, that 90% of the visitors Atlanta or Houston get from overseas are either there due to corporate collaborations and projects, due to major conventions, or to visit family and friends that live there. These aren't really cities that people are paying $2,180 (minimum per person) to cross the Atlantic and see because they heard these cities were so happening, no offense to these cities but just saying.
I'm not saying Chicago is exactly Atlanta and Houston, it is a competent city with much to offer everyone in every age group but I suspect that most visitors to Chicago, even from overseas are there for corporate reasons, conventions, and family/friends. It is not exactly an iconic city, a city with sites and landmarks that are known the world on over, or a city that has offerings and amenities that cannot already be had in New York. This makes Chicago a very underrated city, someone upthread mentioned that people are "pleasantly surprised after seeing Chicago." Well yeah, most people outside of America don't know a great deal about it other than it being a big and important American city, so when they do see the city and all it has to offer, they are surprised that such a large city has such a quiet profile globally. Either that or that the city is significantly better than its crime reputation would have you believe.
I do agree with that statement. I think I said it in this thread or somewhere else. A lot of foreign visitors really really want to see NYC and LA. But when they also visit SF, Chicago, Boston, etc., I have found that those tend to be their favorites. I have actually found San Francisco and Chicago (more SF) amongst foreign tourists favorite cities that have seen more of the country's major cities. Not saying they are everyone's favorites but they tend to really surprise people.
For example my cousin who moved to the US from South America moved to LA, but didn't like LA at all. She came to Chicago and LOVED it. Then she visited San Francisco and loved it even more than Chicago. Then she went to NYC, and loved it, but preferred Chicago and SF over NYC.
My mom also met some Italians when she was in NYC who came to visit NYC, LA, SF, and Chicago. They said they loved Chicago and SF, they hated LA, and they were enjoying NYC too, but SF was their favorite followed by Chicago.
My mom's international student from Sao Paulo loved Chicago. She went to NYC and she came back impressed but not loving it. Felt it was too crowded, dirty and overwhelming. It reminded her of the negative aspects of her hometown Sao Paulo. I don't think she went to California. But she did go to Miami, Boston and DC. Boston and Chicago were her two favorites, with Chicago getting the edge.
In general I found that SF tends to be everyone's favorite once they have seen most major US cities. Chicago and Boston seem to pleasantly surprise everyone and makes it to the top of the list too. NYC is always a unique case, I feel like everyone loves it, but at the same time find it too much at times. I suppose unless you are from a place like Tokyo, Sao Paulo, or Mexico City, I can see why people find it overwhelming, but it's still among people's favorite.
The one that seems to disappoint everyone is LA. Almost everyone I know both domestically and internationally that visit LA are disappointed by it big time. Miami I have found gets mixed reviews. The people that know what to expect from it seem to love it, those that don't seem to be eh about it.
I haven't met many foreign visitors that have gone to these cities but people seem just okay about Philly, and DC.
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.
