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.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,129 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigLake
Agree. Chicago is in the two-three most interesting tourist cities in the U.S. It's a global city and global destination. The only reasons that LA could be considered more of a tourist city would be if you included its full metro areas. In rough order, though again, and fundamentally, it comes down to individual tourist preferences and interests...
A's
NYC
LA / Chicago
B's
Washington, DC
San Francisco (must include Bay Area though)
Philadelphia
Boston
C's
Miami (primarily driven by Ocean and weather, not city itself)
Houston
New Orleans
Seattle
Atlanta
Outliers (Huge tourist destinations but based on specific attractions)
Orlando
Las Vegas
This would be fine so long as DC and probably SF, since you are adding entire surrounding regions, were on the lower tier of the A's.
DC has literally tons of touristic things in the city, let alone expanding out to the regional area. I'd say NYC/LA both (A's). Chicago, Washington DC, and SF (A-).
This would be fine so long as DC and probably SF, since you are adding entire surrounding regions, were on the lower tier of the A's.
DC has literally tons of touristic things in the city, let alone expanding out to the regional area. I'd say NYC/LA both (A's). Chicago, Washington DC, and SF (A-).
Philly and Boston would also be A- too I'd think...A-/B+ cusp at the least.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,129 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
Philly and Boston would also be A- too I'd think...A-/B+ cusp at the least.
In the city I think there's a slight gap for tourist attractions between DC/Chicago, to Boston/Philly. In the regional aspect Boston specifically comes closer. Philly I would keep at B+.
In the city I think there's a slight gap for tourist attractions between DC/Chicago, to Boston/Philly. In the regional aspect Boston specifically comes closer. Philly I would keep at B+.
Of course DC can be nothing less than an A in your book...
And I still don't understand how you place Philadelphia below the others from a regional standpoint?..
City ranking: I will give Chicago the lead over Boston, Philadelphia and DC since its a much larger city and downtown. (DC is not equal to Chicago when comparing cities, sorry). As far as offerings, I would place DC slightly ahead of Philadelphia and Boston (due to more museums and political monuments), as far cohesive downtowns, I would rank Philadelphia and Boston slightly ahead of DC.
Factoring in metro regions, Philadelphia has a lot of national treasures and offerings, at the very least on par with the other 3 regions. Not sure why you think only metro DC gives DC City an advantage but not metro Philadelphia or Boston? And what does the Chicago metro have going for it that Philadelphia and Boston do not? Your analysis always seems skewed and driven by favoritism...
Last edited by cpomp; 07-22-2020 at 12:15 PM..
Reason: edit
Agree. Chicago is in the two-three most interesting tourist cities in the U.S. It's a global city and global destination. The only reasons that LA could be considered more of a tourist city would be if you included its full metro areas. In rough order, though again, and fundamentally, it comes down to individual tourist preferences and interests...
A's
NYC
LA / Chicago
B's
Washington, DC
San Francisco (must include Bay Area though)
Philadelphia
Boston
C's
Miami (primarily driven by Ocean and weather, not city itself)
Houston
New Orleans
Seattle
Atlanta
Outliers (Huge tourist destinations but based on specific attractions)
Orlando
Las Vegas
Lol why do you feel the need to take those shots at Miami, Vegas, and Orlando?
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,129 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpomp
Of course DC can be nothing less than an A in your book...
And I still don't understand how you place Philadelphia below the others from a regional standpoint?..
City ranking: I will give Chicago the lead over Boston, Philadelphia and DC since its a much larger city and downtown. (DC is not equal to Chicago when comparing cities, sorry). As far as offerings, I would place DC slightly ahead of Philadelphia and Boston (due to more museums and political monuments), as far cohesive downtowns, I would rank Philadelphia and Boston slightly ahead of DC.
Factoring in metro regions, Philadelphia has a lot of national treasures and offerings, at the very least on par with the other 3 regions. Not sure why you think only metro DC gives DC City an advantage but not metro Philadelphia or Boston? And what does the Chicago metro have going for it that Philadelphia and Boston do not? Your analysis always seems skewed and driven by favoritism...
What's up with you and this intense defending of Philly? As a metro region it is not on the same tier for tourism as DC/SF/Chicago and probably after Boston as well. The others are closer to each other in terms of what they offer to tourists. Philly being just after that bunch is not a knock on the area. Sorry if that pinches a nerve for you. You're extremely quick in your responses to "bump DC down where it belongs", without even soaking up the knowledge of what the National Capital region offers, and why it's risen to the stature it has. You seem to be much more of a DC naysayer that maybe needs to do a bit more research, than I am of any favorite of anywhere.
This is about what places offer the most for tourists.
NY/LA tier
DC/SF/Chicago and possibly Boston tier a couple of those you have to expand to the metro area. I'd say Chicago and DC easily offer the most in the city.
Then Philly is not too far behind both city in metro for tourism attractions, along with a number of other cities.
The 1-10 order not super important here, the below video of Watch Mojo listing of 10 must see cities in the US.
What's up with you and this intense defending of Philly? As a metro region it is not on the same tier for tourism as DC/SF/Chicago and probably after Boston as well. The others are closer to each other in terms of what they offer to tourists. Philly being just after that bunch is not a knock on the area. Sorry if that pinches a nerve for you. You're extremely quick in your responses to "bump DC down where it belongs", without even soaking up the knowledge of what the National Capital region offers, and why it's risen to the stature it has. You seem to be much more of a DC naysayer that maybe needs to do a bit more research, than I am of any favorite of anywhere.
This is about what places offer the most for tourists.
NY/LA tier
DC/SF/Chicago and possibly Boston tier most of those you have to expand to the metro area. I'd say Chicago and DC easily offer the most in the city.
Then Philly is not too far behind both city in metro for tourism attractions, along with a number of other cities.
The 1-10 order not super important here, the below video of Watch Mojo listing of 10 must see cities in the US.
Philadelphia is not even mentioned the entire video, even honorable mentions went to Seattle, Denver, Orlando, and Nashville.
In fairness though, they "intensely" defend Philadelphia like you "intensely" defend Washington DC... Most people are going to defend "their city" if they feel like someone isn't giving it the credit they feel it deserves or if they feel their city is being degraded.
I honestly love Washington DC and you're not going to hear me knock it. It absolutely has an abundance of sights and monuments and tourist areas - it's one of my favorite cities and regions. I do feel like Philadelphia is being short changed in this conversation though. I understand that your opinion is yours and rightly so, but their opinion of Philadelphia and it being on the same playing field is valid in my book.
The WatchMojo video, while interesting is subjective. I could make my own list that may look totally different from theirs. Doesn't make my list correct and theirs wrong or vice-versa.
Philadelphia is a city at the top of my to visit list (and I acknowledge I am only one person). I personally find the history and amenities catering to that history to be quite fascinating whereas other cities mentioned may not be my cup of tea, so to speak. I can understand that all the historical sights may not be everybody's "thing", but activities in other cities mentioned wouldn't score points with me personally. I would say Philadelphia is on par with the Chicago/San Francisco/Washington DC/Boston group.
Outside Philadelphia city limits there is Valley Forge, Wilmington, DE, Trenton, NJ, The Amish Village and Atlantic City, NJ (both just a little over an hour drive away) and just over an hour away is a train trip to both New York City among other things. It's not any worse for amenities than these other cities being mentioned.
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.
