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.
For most people there isn't a reason to go to MN (unless you are just dying to go to the Mall of America), most people prefer to visit or move to Chicago or NYC (or Florida/Texas).
For most people there isn't a reason to go to MN (unless you are just dying to go to the Mall of America), most people prefer to visit or move to Chicago or NYC (or Florida/Texas).
If those are the options, sure, but you're creating a whole new discussion/argument. If the options are Minnesota or Michigan -- in line with the basis of this thread -- it's probably Minnesota right now that's more popular. I haven't read all pages of this thread yet but IDK why you mentioned this in the first place.
Strangely enough, I was talking to someone from Michigan a couple of weeks ago who went on a deer hunting trip to International Falls, MN. It stuck out to me because I think it was the first time I had ever heard of someone in MI taking a trip specifically to visit Minnesota for tourism reasons.
Neither states are huge tourist traps. Likewise, I haven't heard of anyone (anywhere) who told me about a tourist trip to Michigan. Only for visiting friends/relatives. And I KNOW Michigan has a LOT that is tourist-worthy, and it's a place I'd like to check out more with my family once the kids are old enough to appreciate road trips.
FWIW I'd compare lower Michigan to Ohio (large # of midsized/large cities, quentessential Rust Belt USA, a bit dull, farming intensive), and I'd compare the UP of Michigan to Minnesota (or at least Northern MN). Lower MI and lower MN have very little in common except the farming-intensive nature of the land.
I would probably argue Minnesota although Detroit probably has as much in common with Buffalo as it does with Minneapolis. I really see far Western New York as close to an extension of the Midwest. Buffalo Syracuse Rochester and Pittsburgh have far more in common with Chicago Detroit and Cleveland than with Philadelphia or New York.
I would probably argue Minnesota although Detroit probably has as much in common with Buffalo as it does with Minneapolis. I really see far Western New York as close to an extension of the Midwest. Buffalo Syracuse Rochester and Pittsburgh have far more in common with Chicago Detroit and Cleveland than with Philadelphia or New York.
I think those NY areas have more in common with Great Lakes areas in the Midwest, but they are still Northeastern cities in terms of how they are set up in terms of infrastructure. Out of the Midwestern Great Lakes areas, Cleveland seems to have more in common with those NY areas.
Neither states are huge tourist traps. Likewise, I haven't heard of anyone (anywhere) who told me about a tourist trip to Michigan. Only for visiting friends/relatives. And I KNOW Michigan has a LOT that is tourist-worthy, and it's a place I'd like to check out more with my family once the kids are old enough to appreciate road trips.
FWIW I'd compare lower Michigan to Ohio (large # of midsized/large cities, quentessential Rust Belt USA, a bit dull, farming intensive), and I'd compare the UP of Michigan to Minnesota (or at least Northern MN). Lower MI and lower MN have very little in common except the farming-intensive nature of the land.
I actually wasn't trying to be disparaging towards Minnesota, but I didn't follow through and explain my post very well. I was trying to expand upon the comment from someone else that no one in Michigan mentions Minnesota, but you will often hear people talk about trips to New York. The point being that I think most Michigan residents are under the impression that many of the best things that Minnesota offers for natural beauty, such as the north woods, inland lakes, and Lake Superior, can also be found in Michigan, making a trip to Minnesota unnecessary. We don't have a large city that even comes close to matching Minneapolis as an urban destination... but Chicago does measure up to Minneapolis, and it is much closer. We definitely don't have a plains/prairie landscape like western Minnesota, but most people aren't going to travel to see that either (I actually would, but I am a geography nerd!). Of course, there are other things in Minnesota that Michigan doesn't have, such as the Mississippi River/driftless region in the southeast corner, but again, will people make a trip to see it? Probably not.
I think the main point of all my ramblings is that Michigan is actually more similar to Minnesota, making upstate New York a more interesting tourist destination for most Michiganders.
As for which state is a bigger state for tourism between MI and MN, I'm pretty sure that Michigan is a much bigger tourist destination, but I am having trouble finding stats showing such things. The best I can seem to find is a list that shows Michigan's tourism budget is $27.4 million (6th in the U.S.) and Minnesota's is $8.5 million (30th in the U.S.)
For most people there isn't a reason to go to MN (unless you are just dying to go to the Mall of America), most people prefer to visit or move to Chicago or NYC (or Florida/Texas).
Off topic
And simply wrong. If you're not crazy about California, the fact that its not acknowledged and included in the four places (two in parentheses) And why Texas or Florida over Arizona or Colorado?? And what about DC being our nations capital. Strange.
I think those NY areas have more in common with Great Lakes areas in the Midwest, but they are still Northeastern cities in terms of how they are set up in terms of infrastructure. Out of the Midwestern Great Lakes areas, Cleveland seems to have more in common with those NY areas.
Really? Cleveland seems to me to split down the middle between Detroit and Buffalo. Cleveland is a Midwestern city ultimately. Explain how Buffalo and Pittsburgh are Northeastern in terms of infrastructure. I really don't understand that.
More like Minnesota. They're both Midwestern and upstate New York is pretty irreligious compared to MN and MI. The UP is very similar to northern Minnesota too.
Really? Cleveland seems to me to split down the middle between Detroit and Buffalo. Cleveland is a Midwestern city ultimately. Explain how Buffalo and Pittsburgh are Northeastern in terms of infrastructure. I really don't understand that.
More dense in terms of built environment and Cleveland was settled by people from Connecticut, which in turn gives it a built environment similar to Northeastern cities/areas.
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.
