Quote Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
I would not have expected Boston to get more international visitors than Chicago. That's pretty surprising. Chicago seems to be punching well below its weight. But what might be dragging Chicago down is that there aren't other draws in close proximity. Boston and DC benefit from their proximity to NYC. LA, SF, Vegas and San Diego can also trade tourists back and forth. Orlando and Miami can do that too. But everything near Chicago has the perception of being a wasteland. If Detroit were in better shape that would probably be a boon to Chicago tourism.
Boston doesn't surprise me. It's unparalleled historical significance and walkable charm are a huge draw. It's a relatively small but endlessly fascinating city.

Detroit's lack of a draw of a tourist destination doesn't really bother me. What bothers me is that many of those same reasons translate into a poor quality of life. That's the whole Metro, mind you.

You're stuck in a car for most of your life, with deteriorating roads and drivers [[and pedestrians, see Steve Utash) who are ready to murder you at the drop of a hat. It's a pretty drab, dreary, post-industrial area, with virtually nothing to offer in terms of outdoor recreation and enjoyment. You could easily bike the entire "river walk" in an hour, and other than that, the river is inaccessible. There's still nothing to do on Belle Isle, the only other real access to the water. Some crummy, seedy malls, sprawling auto plants, some open, some shuttered. Aluminum-sided box houses as far as the eye can see, many vacant or soon-to-be. It's really a rather dystopian place to live. Not much to do besides eat and drink yourself blind, if you're an engineer or something and have the money to do so. Take Royal Oak, for example. What a Potemkin village. Park your car, get shitfaced, get pulled over, what is there to do besides that? It's like 2 blocks of bars and nothing else. What's the point?