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 know Honolulu well, in fact I was born and raised there
The airport is a disaster
Ain't that the truth! Horrible first impression for Hawaii's visitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimumingyu
[*]Honolulu: B - Tons of world-class hotels, top-tier beaches, Diamond Head for hiking, marine sports, etc. However similar, if not even better, locations can be found on every continent (Southeast Asia, various Mediterranean spots, the Caribbean, etc.).
I don't see how you could have left off Pearl Harbor. It's a fascinating place, and singularly unique; I'm not aware of anyplace else like it anywhere in the world. There are some other worthwhile attractions as well, such as Iolani Palace, the Bishop Museum, and Punchbowl.
I can't speak to Southeast Asia or the Mediterranean, but I'll take Hawaii over any place I've yet seen in the Caribbean, by any measure you care to name.
I tend to agree with this. I don't think there's really any city in the world worth spending an entire week in.
4 days in NYC is probably enough if you're ambitious. The way I see it...
Day 1: One whole day for Liberty/Ellis Island. You could theoretically do them in the morning and then move on to other atractions later in the day. But the work required to get there is a bit exhausting, imo, and especially so if you're going with kids or older people. You could probably spend some time in Lower Manhattan and see the Oculus and 9/11 Memorial/Museum and kill 2 birds with 1 stone.
Day 2: One whole day sight seeing in Midtown (5th Ave, Times Square, Rock Center, etc.). Maybe swing a little farther north to check out Lincoln Center.
Day 3: A museum or two for half the day. Central Park for the other half.
Day 4: One day in Tribeca, SoHo, Little Italy, the Village, walk across the Brooklyn Bridge.
I think that covers most of the big stuff. You could add in a 5th day to maybe spend more time at museums or explore some other neighborhoods. But I think 4 days is enough to adequately cover all the major tourist attractions.
Neh.
One could easily spend a week plus in NYC, London, Paris and a few other cities and be excited each morning at the prospect of some interesting, unique day and night ahead. Again, it depends on what one is looking for. For the invested traveler, it's impossible to put a freshness date on any of the top cities.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigLake
Neh.
One could easily spend a week plus in NYC, London, Paris and a few other cities and be excited each morning at the prospect of some interesting, unique day and night ahead. Again, it depends on what one is looking for. For the invested traveler, it's impossible to put a freshness date on any of the top cities.
No Bajan is right. I've hit the following Euro cities in two or three days, at least from the parts I was actually on tour, and felt like I grasped the most I needed to in them.
London
Paris
Prague
Barcelona
Madrid
Copenhagen
Frankfurt
Vienna
Budapest (knocked out in like 10 hours)
Etc.
One does not NEED a week in any of these places, that would include an NYC. To grasp the overall experience. However, I think the point of the OP is to say which of these cities would it take you the most days to do a full lineup of the cities best activities, and attractions that are most well known to that city. Leaving no stone unturned.
I think off my experiences and just traveling in general. The US "cities" with the most to do for a tourist inside that central city would be NYC, DC, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, SF. Now when talking a region or metro LA soon shoots to the top of the list. Miami, Vegas, Orlando will always be tourist traps, but two of them at least are more of a regional draw, than the actual city itself.
Isn't this thread about what cities have to offer tourists in general and not you personally? Even Greensboro and Dayton got D's here but Charlotte gets an F? That's pretty laughable.
Greensboro has a lot more history than Charlotte and nearby Old Salem is a gem. Dayton has a nationally renowned museum of the Air Force. Both also have a character and identity (Greensboro as a tobacco town, Dayton as an aviation town) that gives them a local flavor.
My baseline is for the average tourist. If you're an evangelical who likes NASCAR, I'm sure Charlotte is a blast. But it has limited appeal for everyone else.
The city is rapidly growing and has some trendy neighborhoods, but those aren't big enough draws to make it worthwhile for tourists. People, don't get so defensive about it. Some cities are tourist magnets, others are corporate hubs, others are quiet towns that are neither. Charlotte is still in the corporate hub phase of its development.
I just hope it doesn't get to be like Houston, a metro of 8,000,000 with very little to see.
Also, Billy Graham called gays "a most sinister form of pervert" and died a multi-millionaire. Forgive me if I don't consider his Library something worth advertising to tourists.
Last edited by manitopiaaa; 07-14-2020 at 12:31 AM..
Day One: Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial, National World War II Memorial, Roosevelt Memorial, King Memorial, Constitution Gardens, Holocaust Museum, Maine Street Fish Market
Day Two: Capitol Hill, Supreme Court, United States Capitol Building, Library of Congress, Bartholdi Fountain, United States Botanic Garden, Union Station
Day Three: The White House, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Lafayette Square, Old Ebbitt Grill, Treasury Building, Hay-Adams Hotel, Renwick Gallery, Dupont Circle, Logan Circle
Day Four: National Air and Space Museum, National Gallery of Art - both wings
Day Five: Arlington National Cemetery, Marine Corps War Memorial, Pentagon Memorial, Air Force Memorial, some shopping in Pentagon City or the Orange Line Corridor
Day Six: Georgetown, Cupcake Tour, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington National Cathedral, National Zoological Park
Day Seven: National Museum of American History, National Museum of Natural History, National Archives
Day Eight: Chinatown, American Art Museum, Portrait Gallery, National Building Museum, Little Ethiopia, U Street, Ben's Chili Bowl, House of the Temple, Shaw, Bloomingdale, etc
Day Nine: Alexandria Old Town, Mount Vernon Estate
Day Ten: Nationals Game, Navy Yard, Barracks Row, Rose's Luxury + one of the dozen+ Smithsonians/museums unseen (Freer/Sackler, American Indian, African American History and Culture, Arts and Industries Building, International Spy, Museum of the Bible, Hirshhorn, etc.), the
What about the WW1 memorial, Vietnam memorial wall, Korean war memorial.
What about the National Zoo, National Aquarium, the Octagon.
What about the Woodrow Wilson home. The National Cathedral where he is buried.
Arlington cemetery also is the burial site of William Howard Taft.
How can you forget Ford's theatre and it's downstairs museum and the Peterson house across the street?
The Folger - Shakespeare library. They have several of the 1623 First Folios.
Longwood Gardens is beautiful and absolutely worth a visit. But it's also 30 miles from central Philadelphia and thus well outside the OP's range.
Yes, but its a part of the Philadelphia metro region. That same poster I responded to mentioned sites and towns in the greater New York and Boston areas that are a lot further than 30 miles from the city.
My point was that the Philadelphia region has a lot to offer.
But yes, this thread was originally about the cities and took a turn when someone mentioned you need a month to explore metro Boston...
Another thing is that pretty much any city with a "C" or better by the OP's list (plus a few that deserved a higher grade like Charlotte) will usually have a decent amount of special and annual events that give better "replay value" to visiting them. Anything from traveling exhibits in museums, different sports teams or musical plays, new restaurants/shops, and the like will provide a great way to lure visitors back again. The "A" and "B" cities always are reinventing themselves in some form or another, so its rared to get bored if you keep visiting them a week every year. IMO its literally impossible to see everything in an "A" city before something new opens or something either closes or relocates before you have the opportunity to check it out.
No Bajan is right. I've hit the following Euro cities in two or three days, at least from the parts I was actually on tour, and felt like I grasped the most I needed to in them.
London
Paris
Prague
Barcelona
Madrid
Copenhagen
Frankfurt
Vienna
Budapest (knocked out in like 10 hours)
Etc.
One does not NEED a week in any of these places, that would include an NYC. To grasp the overall experience. However, I think the point of the OP is to say which of these cities would it take you the most days to do a full lineup of the cities best activities, and attractions that are most well known to that city. Leaving no stone unturned.
I think off my experiences and just traveling in general. The US "cities" with the most to do for a tourist inside that central city would be NYC, DC, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, SF. Now when talking a region or metro LA soon shoots to the top of the list. Miami, Vegas, Orlando will always be tourist traps, but two of them at least are more of a regional draw, than the actual city itself.
Agreed. A lot of people on here have odd measurements for the time needed to explore a city... like the post breaking down a 14 day trip to DC sounds painful.
Also agree, to grasp the experience you do not need the exaggerated timelines I see throughout this thread, unless you are leaving "no stone unturned" which I personally do not find interest in that, unless I am moving somewhere for an extended period of time.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,553,115 times
Reputation: 6685
I agree 14 days is extreme for DC but I think 2-3 days for an Alpha Global City is shortchanging oneself, with a minimum 5 days required (especially if traveling a great distance with multiple time zone changes/overseas/redeye in which case it takes me a full day (let alone 4+ hour nap) to adjust to jet lag and my surroundings).
I’m also one of those weirdos who doesn’t spend all his time in tourist areas and actually likes venturing into neighborhoods that have few, if any tourists, to gain a sense of the local flavor of the city (and locals) and/or to allow for a convenient day trip outside the city...I guess that’s why cruises have never appealed to me—too short a time in any one city and I like being in control of my schedule, unless one spends more time before or after the cruise in one particular city on their own. I’ve gone back to a few cities not only because I enjoyed myself but the time spent there on my first visit was too short.
In the US, NYC, LA and SF (Bay Area) would be my cities requiring minimum 5 days for a first time visitor. Yes, some people do only 2 days in those cities, which wouldn’t scratch the surface for me unless I had visited there previously and I was checking out a different neighborhood(s) on a follow up visit.
Last edited by elchevere; 07-14-2020 at 07:25 AM..
Agreed. A lot of people on here have odd measurements for the time needed to explore a city... like the post breaking down a 14 day trip to DC sounds painful.
Also agree, to grasp the experience you do not need the exaggerated timelines I see throughout this thread, unless you are leaving "no stone unturned" which I personally do not find interest in that, unless I am moving somewhere for an extended period of time.
Disagree with both but to each their own. If you think you can fully grasp London, NYC or Paris in 3-4 days, more power to you. But do you really think you'll grasp the overall sense cities of this scope and uniqueness of these cities in this timeframe? Personally, and I have been to both London and Paris several times, I would not even consider a trip to either for less than 5 days (not even withstanding jetlag). A 4 day trip to London would barely give you even a clift notes version of the city.
Again, to each their own.
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.
