Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which city suffers most ills of visitors/tourism? (ignore benefits)
Atlanta 2 3.70%
Boston 2 3.70%
Chicago 0 0%
Denver 1 1.85%
Honolulu 7 12.96%
Las Vegas 8 14.81%
Los Angeles 2 3.70%
Miami 3 5.56%
New Orleans 4 7.41%
New York 7 12.96%
Orange Co/Anaheim 0 0%
Orlando 10 18.52%
Philadelphia 1 1.85%
San Diego 0 0%
San Francisco 1 1.85%
Washington 6 11.11%
Voters: 54. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-01-2019, 06:56 AM
 
Location: Chicago
6,359 posts, read 8,782,851 times
Reputation: 5870

Advertisements

This thread seeks your opinion on which US city suffers the worst effects of visitors (tourism/conventions/other).

Overcrowding would, of course, be the #1 ill of visitors coming to a city. This may be your main criteria but other criteria, of course, can be used.

To come up with a fair and decent list of cities/metros to use, I googled and found three sources from which to draw the cities entered into the poll:

US CITIES: RANK OF # OF FOREIGN VISITORS
https://www.escapehere.com/destinati...ign-travelers/
01 New York
02 Miami
03 Los Angeles
04 Orlando
05 San Francisco
06 Las Vegas
07 Honolulu
08 Washington
09 Chicago
10 Boston

US CITIES: RANK OF # OF DOMESTIC VISITORS
https://www.insider.com/most-visited-us-cities-2017-12
01 New York
02 Los Angeles
03 Orlando
04 Las Vegas
05 Chicago
06 Washington
07 San Francisco
08 Miami
09 Denver
10 Atlanta

US CITIES: RANK OF # OF TOTAL VISITORS
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...in-the-us.html
01 New York
02 Chicago
03 Atlanta
04 Orange Co/Anaheim
05 Orlando
06 Los Angeles
07 Las Vegas
08 Philadelphia
09 San Diego
10 San Francisco

Using the three list above, a list of cities that appeared on at least one list (for poll). To the three lists, I used my discretion to add the only other city that IMHO must be included on such a ranking: New Orleans

Atlanta
Boston
Chicago
Denver
Honolulu
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Miami
New Orleans
New York
Orange Co/Anaheim
Orlando
Philadelphia
San Diego
San Francisco
Washington

Regular Note: The number of visitors and the size of each city are not the determining factors for evaluation...although both, of course, greatly influence what city you would select. Also: THIS THREAD IS ONLY FOCUSING ON NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF TOURISM. THE POSITIVES ARE NOT CONSIDERED. A CITY COULD GET ENORMOUS GAINS FROM TOURISM, FAR MORE GAINS THAN ITS LOSES AND STILL BE #1 BASED ON HOW MUCH SUFFERING IT GETS

800 pound Note: Yes, I know, there is an 800 pound gorilla in the room. Or at least a 5 borough one. I could have used to "except New York" disclaimer, but I felt that New York belongs and shouldn't get an automatic. New York is not conceded the top spot. If New York can truly handle the hordes that invade...er....come to it, it doesn't deserve to be #1 (A #1, king of the hill possibly, but not just plain #1) Discussion of why you made your choice helps a lot. In fact, the most interesting posts would be from those who didn't rank New York first.

Last edited by edsg25; 08-01-2019 at 07:05 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-01-2019, 07:30 AM
 
Location: New York City
1,943 posts, read 1,475,831 times
Reputation: 3316
I voted New York, and maybe because I see it on a daily basis. I avoid anywhere near Times Square and the Broadway area because it is overrun with tourists all day every day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 08:48 AM
 
616 posts, read 547,289 times
Reputation: 907
Miami Beach. What a crowded island.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 09:45 AM
 
8,256 posts, read 17,281,064 times
Reputation: 6225
Quote:
Originally Posted by MB1562 View Post
I voted New York, and maybe because I see it on a daily basis. I avoid anywhere near Times Square and the Broadway area because it is overrun with tourists all day every day.
I thought about NYC, but then I remembered we only have to avoid very select few parts of Manhattan. Times Square, Herald Square, and WTC. It sucks during working hours when people have to be in offices near those locations. But away from those locations, we don't deal with tourists and there's a massive city out there for us.

I voted for Honolulu. It's a small island with a long non-European history. With increased tourism, it loses that rich culture it's long had and it's a finite island that cannot grow outward. Everything from the main tourism hotspots of Waikiki to the old former fishing villages on the North Shore has turned toward attracting tourist money. In that way, I feel like it affects Honolulu more than it does NYC, because once you leave the tourist hotspots in Manhattan, the city is left for us and doesn't focus on attracting tourism all that much.

Same with Miami. Leave Miami Beach and it's a strongly locals city. Locals in that sense would include the recent transplants, but who are there for the long-term, not tourists. I thought SF and LA also. But tourist areas like Haight Ashbury still have local stores and restaurants. And in LA, it's only a select few neighborhoods that are overrun. What sucks in LA is that the neighborhoods that were formerly built for locals (not like Times Square and Herald Square more built for tourism), are now overrun with tourists (Santa Monica, Venice Beach, arguably West Hollywood and DTLA).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 10:10 AM
 
Location: East Mt Airy, Philadelphia
1,119 posts, read 1,456,642 times
Reputation: 2200
Without the theme parks Orlando would probably be a sleepy, hot, humid town filled with retirees. So if you look at the tourist volume wrought by The Mouse and others, the impact on Orlando is vastly greater than ... pretty much anywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 10:39 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
3,416 posts, read 2,427,211 times
Reputation: 6164
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
This thread seeks your opinion on which US city suffers the worst effects of visitors (tourism/conventions/other).

Overcrowding would, of course, be the #1 ill of visitors coming to a city. This may be your main criteria but other criteria, of course, can be used.

To come up with a fair and decent list of cities/metros to use, I googled and found three sources from which to draw the cities entered into the poll:

US CITIES: RANK OF # OF FOREIGN VISITORS
https://www.escapehere.com/destinati...ign-travelers/
01 New York
02 Miami
03 Los Angeles
04 Orlando
05 San Francisco
06 Las Vegas
07 Honolulu
08 Washington
09 Chicago
10 Boston

US CITIES: RANK OF # OF DOMESTIC VISITORS
https://www.insider.com/most-visited-us-cities-2017-12
01 New York
02 Los Angeles
03 Orlando
04 Las Vegas
05 Chicago
06 Washington
07 San Francisco
08 Miami
09 Denver
10 Atlanta

US CITIES: RANK OF # OF TOTAL VISITORS
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...in-the-us.html
01 New York
02 Chicago
03 Atlanta

04 Orange Co/Anaheim
05 Orlando
06 Los Angeles
07 Las Vegas
08 Philadelphia
09 San Diego
10 San Francisco
That third list is obviously taking into account airport traffic. Not sure how Chicago could be #9 for international visitors and #5 for domestic, but #2 overall. Atlanta is even worse when it’s not even in the top 10 for international visitors and #10 for domestic, but is #3 overall. I don’t put much stock in any of these lists though. It seems like you can find one out there to back up any point you’re trying to make.

As for the question it’s tough because you can pretty much avoid the hordes of tourists if you don’t live, work, or play in just a couple areas of the city.

I thought Los Angeles might be the best answer because it has the most attractions spread over a larger area so you’re dealing with them everywhere, but conversely they’ll blend into the masses easier than when they're concentrated into a few specific spots.

I went with Honolulu because I’ve been there in all the seasons and you can’t tell the difference in the number of tourists everywhere (summer is worse), plus most standout like a sore thumb. While there’s plenty of areas of Oahu that are untouched with few tourists, it’s still a small island and it’s hard to avoid them with the exception of these spots and residential areas.

Right up there has to be Orlando. I was there in the summer once and I couldn’t fathom why anyone would choose to go there then with the weather, but it’s obvious because that’s when people take their vacations. I don’t know what it’s like in the winter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 10:54 AM
 
11,289 posts, read 26,103,765 times
Reputation: 11354
Quote:
Originally Posted by TacoSoup View Post
That third list is obviously taking into account airport traffic. Not sure how Chicago could be #9 for international visitors and #5 for domestic, but #2 overall. Atlanta is even worse when it’s not even in the top 10 for international visitors and #10 for domestic, but is #3 overall. I don’t put much stock in any of these lists though. It seems like you can find one out there to back up any point you’re trying to make.

As for the question it’s tough because you can pretty much avoid the hordes of tourists if you don’t live, work, or play in just a couple areas of the city.

I thought Los Angeles might be the best answer because it has the most attractions spread over a larger area so you’re dealing with them everywhere, but conversely they’ll blend into the masses easier than when they're concentrated into a few specific spots.

I went with Honolulu because I’ve been there in all the seasons and you can’t tell the difference in the number of tourists everywhere (summer is worse), plus most standout like a sore thumb. While there’s plenty of areas of Oahu that are untouched with few tourists, it’s still a small island and it’s hard to avoid them with the exception of these spots and residential areas.

Right up there has to be Orlando. I was there in the summer once and I couldn’t fathom why anyone would choose to go there then with the weather, but it’s obvious because that’s when people take their vacations. I don’t know what it’s like in the winter.
The second list of the number of cities that see roundtrip flight visits, so mostly people from outside the region.

Chicago sees a huge number of people coming in via car or train, mostly from everywhere else in the Midwest.

I believe for total domestic visitors Chicago is right up there towards the top.

The city has seen a huge increase in tourism with all of the new investments in the downtown area, the parks, riverwalk, renovating Navy Pier, etc.

Total visitors in millions:

2010: 38.1
2012: 45.0
2014: 47.9
2016: 54.1
2018: 57.6
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Howard County, Maryland
16,383 posts, read 10,422,335 times
Reputation: 36207
A strong argument can be made that two of the OP's cities, they being Orlando and Las Vegas, wouldn't exist in anything approaching their current form were it not for tourism. Honolulu would be a distant third. But all of the other cities would continue to exist, and be recognizable in relation to their current forms, even if all tourism halted tomorrow.

Thus, from the standpoint of a local resident, the biggest impacts of tourism are felt on the three cities I named. Las Vegas residents benefit from the many restaurants and shows that are available to them, so one could argue that tourism enhances their day to day lives. And Honolulu residents still have their beaches, even if they're crowded with tourists. But Orlando has mainly theme parks, which most residents might visit once a year if that. Thus, they get all the crowds but little of the benefit. So I'm going to say Orlando.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 12:06 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
3,416 posts, read 2,427,211 times
Reputation: 6164
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man View Post
A strong argument can be made that two of the OP's cities, they being Orlando and Las Vegas, wouldn't exist in anything approaching their current form were it not for tourism. Honolulu would be a distant third. But all of the other cities would continue to exist, and be recognizable in relation to their current forms, even if all tourism halted tomorrow.

Thus, from the standpoint of a local resident, the biggest impacts of tourism are felt on the three cities I named. Las Vegas residents benefit from the many restaurants and shows that are available to them, so one could argue that tourism enhances their day to day lives. And Honolulu residents still have their beaches, even if they're crowded with tourists. But Orlando has mainly theme parks, which most residents might visit once a year if that. Thus, they get all the crowds but little of the benefit. So I'm going to say Orlando.
You bring up a really good points about Orlando and Vegas not existing like we know them without their tourist attractions.

You also make a good point about residents of Vegas benefitting more because of the restaurants and shows (and gambling), and this is true, but I wouldn’t dismiss the Orlando theme parks as something that are maybe done once a year. I could see this as a huge benefit for families with young kids.

Before they were school age, I went to either Disneyland, Legoland, or Sea World with my sister and her kids on nearly a weekly basis. When they got older, while not as frequent, we made trips to Magic Mountain, Knotts Berry Farm, and Universal Studios, as she had season passes for us all. I’m sure this is the case for many in and around Orlando as well. But yeah, for adults, residents of Las Vegas benefit greatly from their tourist attractions. It’s also very easy to avoid tourists there in your day to day life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 12:38 PM
 
8,256 posts, read 17,281,064 times
Reputation: 6225
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man View Post
A strong argument can be made that two of the OP's cities, they being Orlando and Las Vegas, wouldn't exist in anything approaching their current form were it not for tourism. Honolulu would be a distant third. But all of the other cities would continue to exist, and be recognizable in relation to their current forms, even if all tourism halted tomorrow.

Thus, from the standpoint of a local resident, the biggest impacts of tourism are felt on the three cities I named. Las Vegas residents benefit from the many restaurants and shows that are available to them, so one could argue that tourism enhances their day to day lives. And Honolulu residents still have their beaches, even if they're crowded with tourists. But Orlando has mainly theme parks, which most residents might visit once a year if that. Thus, they get all the crowds but little of the benefit. So I'm going to say Orlando.
I think this may be to Orlando's benefit, though. It would be much smaller than it is today without the theme park investment and tourism money. Its airport is quite large and prominent in order to accommodate the tourists from all over the world. Some people move to the area specifically to work at the theme park or live close enough to attend regularly with their families. I'm sure this brings a good amount of diversity along with it, either at least from within the country, but maybe even from beyond.

However, the theme parks are outside the city. The tourists aren't crowding the main thoroughfares and downtown sidewalks and businesses in local neighborhoods are not catering to the tourist crowds.

Also, I'm sure a large number of jobs exist simply because of the theme parks. Either directly or peripherally like hotel workers and extra airport employees because there would be no need for such a large hospitality or airline industry if it weren't for the theme parks.

Las Vegas is very similar. The difference being that Las Vegas has some of the world's best restaurants and nightlife because of its tourist industry, and its airport is well connected.

Unlike other major cities that would be fine without the tourism, LV and Orlando need the tourism as part of their economy and identity. However, that tourism money is quite removed from the local population so as not to affect their daily lives. OTOH, Honolulu is affected by it day in day out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top