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.
Just because you do not see the attraction does not mean that others won't as well. Chicago is a famous city. Whether you can understand that or not does not matter because people throughout Asia and Europe see it as such.
I'm not sure it's been established that people from Asia and Europe see Chicago as famous, or as a "must see". We are all speculating on what they would want to see, and what we want them to see.
I picked New York, Chicago and San Fran. They're a pretty good mix.
I agree completely. These cities are normally the first ones people think of when thinking about the United States. Of course, I might also add Washington, D.C. to the list just because I think that every tourist of America has to see its MOST defining city.
This has been a great discussion, but the obvious answer is Chicago. After they have fun with the CTA and Mayor Daley's cops, they'll move to Naperville and buy an SUV and a McMansion. I want tourists to become real Americans. Bakers Square for dinner it is!
[quote=K-Luv;2440104]Just because you do not see the attraction does not mean that others won't as well. Chicago is a famous city. Whether you can understand that or not does not matter because people throughout Asia and Europe see it as such.[/quote]
actually,no.....Chicago is a underrated city in foreign countries. People know of its existance but they don't care too much for it.
I've been host to two foreigners visiting Chicago. They loved it. The second one didn't want to even go downtown, but I rocked down the Kennedy and was begged to park the car after seeing Michigan Avenue and The Loop. If I tried to park in downtown Detroit, I'd probably make them cry. The freeways don't have any traffic, nothing from the freeway before you get downtown gives any good impression, and the central core itself is almost never 'busy.'
I would disagree heartily with this. There is no understanding of American cities to be found in Chicago-- Chicago and New York City alone are unique in their construction. Grid patterns, public transit, skyscrapers, etc. There is nothing else that compares to their scale or lifestyle-- in fact, the overwhelming majority of "American" cities are polar opposites. San Fran and LA have both embraced suburbanism with a reluctant nod to the need of some kind of core. The south, southeast, southwest, midwest and all of the west are vastly different from Chicago and NYC.
Do you mean that NYC and Chicago are more 'urban' (and much larger, obviously) than the majority of American cities? That is true. However, I was also taking into account the fact these hypothetical individuals are tourists. Perhaps you could argue that for the quintessential American urban experience you would take them to Wichita, Indianapolis and Phoenix, however, I suspect they'd be quite bored. Of the cities I was considering for the third spot, I think Chicago is a better example of an American city than DC or SF.
Nevertheless, part of the reason I included LA was that it is an example of the suburb-centric model of development. It's just that model taken to the highest possible degree, which means that while it may not be typical, it's at least more interesting than other, similarly developed, places.
And SF has a "reluctant nod to a core?" I have to disagree with that one.
Ok so i guess, it does attract tourists... but still, whats the attraction? modern architecture? I wouldn't think so, you can find that in Many other non overseas cities...
I guess, Chicago is famous for being famous lol.... I guess, I wouldn't recommend it if someone had limited time, but I can see its worth a visit if you're from Canada or Mexico but not China or Germany... I don't know, its all opinion...
It just has a lot to do other than architecture, symphonies, shopping, art scenes, *plays*, nightlife, and just a lot of stuff that attracts people worldwide.
It just has a lot to do other than architecture, symphonies, shopping, art scenes, *plays*, nightlife, and just a lot of stuff that attracts people worldwide.
yes, I KNOW lol, thats my point. It not that it is inferior... but what does it have that Houston doesn't? Houston, Dallas, Atlanta etc have concerts, symphonies, museums... Chicago's aren't that much better, or in fact I think the Tennessee Orchestra has more of a reputation...yet Chicago remains at the top of the tourist list.
I know it sounds like I'm trying to degrade the city, but I'm not... what is really the draw?
a question to the people from Chicago...
Where are your tourists from? Mainly, Canada? other part of the US? because if a large enough mass of Canadians it could really boast Chicago's tourist industry.
St. Louis is a beautiful city and there's a lot to do for its size, so I picked it. I love the city myself, but you probably couldn't spend as much time as in a larger city. Although you could probably spend the entire day at the City Museum if you let yourself. If a foreigner had the time I'd suggest visiting Lake of the Ozarks also. It's not a large metro area like some on this list, but it is beautiful. I also picked 2 much larger cities, Chicago and New York City. I've always wanted to visit both.
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.
I want tourists to become real Americans. Bakers Square for dinner it is!
