Vacation in Detroit ?

[dtowncitylover]

Chicago does not get a huge number of leisure visitors relative to business visitors. It also isn't among the main tourist centers in the U.S. for international visitors.

Yes it is. I would say being consistently within the top 10 American cities for intl tourists makes you a main center.

http://www.travelersdigest.com/5968-...ign-travelers/

http://skift.com/2014/06/18/20-most-...elers-in-2013/

It's the only city, besides Las Vegas for obvious reasons, that's not on the coast or in a warmer climate. International tourist go to the coasts first then when they want to go inland, they flock to Chicago. Walk down Michigan or State and you'll for sure hear 20 different languages spoken by obvious tourists.

[Bham1982]

Yes it is. I would say being consistently within the top 10 American cities for intl tourists makes you a main center.

Not really. Chicago is the third largest U.S. city, but barely in the top 10 for international visitors. Seems like a pretty big under performer relative to size. It gets fewer international visitors than even Boston, which doesn't get many international flights.

And I never said Chicago doesn't get international visitors. I said it doesn't get international leisure tourists. Chicago is a huge business center and is a primary international airport gateway city.

It's the only city, besides Las Vegas for obvious reasons, that's not on the coast or in a warmer climate.

Not true. Cities with higher tourist counts aren't on either coast, besides Vegas.

What this has to do with visitor counts, I have no idea, as Chicago is one of the biggest international flight hubs in North America. Among the big cities, only NYC, LA, and SF get more international airport travelers.

Paris, the most popular city for visitors anywhere on earth, isn't on a coast. Doesn't have warm climate either.

Walk down Michigan or State and you'll for sure hear 20 different languages spoken by obvious tourists.

This is nonsense. State Street isn't even a popular street for domestic tourists, or even Chicagoans. It hasn't been the retail center for 40 years.

Michigan Ave. is a hugely popular street for visitors, but mostly from the Midwest. Won't hear many foreign languages while waiting in line at the mall stores. It's mostly fanny packed heifers from Iowa, Indiana and the like, but they spend money, so it's all good.

[dtowncitylover]

This is nonsense. State Street isn't even a popular street for domestic tourists, or even Chicagoans. It hasn't been the retail center for 40 years.

Michigan Ave. is a hugely popular street for visitors, but mostly from the Midwest. Won't hear many foreign languages while waiting in line at the mall stores. It's mostly fanny packed heifers from Iowa, Indiana and the like, but they spend money, so it's all good.

Ah ok so all those stores and people are just a mirage.

And what cities above Chicago are not on the coast and/or in a warm climate?

For as "isolated" as Chicago is to the rest of American centers, I would say it's doing pretty well for international tourists.

[animatedmartian]

Yes it is. I would say being consistently within the top 10 American cities for intl tourists makes you a main center.

http://www.travelersdigest.com/5968-...ign-travelers/

http://skift.com/2014/06/18/20-most-...elers-in-2013/

It's the only city, besides Las Vegas for obvious reasons, that's not on the coast or in a warmer climate. International tourist go to the coasts first then when they want to go inland, they flock to Chicago. Walk down Michigan or State and you'll for sure hear 20 different languages spoken by obvious tourists.

But wait a minute, number 9 and number 2 on that most visitors list contradict what posters have been saying in this thread. Boston and Los Angeles? What could possibly be in Boston to draw in more visitors than Chicago? And don't people have to rent cars and drive around for 20 miles in Los Angeles? In heavy traffic no less? Aren't Santa Monica and West Hollywood suburbs? And Houston don't even get me started.

[Bham1982]

Boston and Los Angeles? What could possibly be in Boston to draw in more visitors than Chicago? And don't people have to rent cars and drive around for 20 miles in Los Angeles? In heavy traffic no less? Aren't Santa Monica and West Hollywood suburbs? And Houston don't even get me started.

I don't really think that Boston has more to offer than Chicago, but I think they're roughly comparable in terms of visitor attractions. The advantage with Boston probably lies in the history, the charming, 17th/18th century neighborhoods not existing outside the Northeast, and maybe iconic Harvard Square. Chicago is bigger and has more stuff but Boston is a bit more distinctive and better located from a tourist perspective [[New England is gorgeous compared to rural Illinois/Indiana).

LA is a beast and despite the DYes bias against sprawly cities is very visitor friendly. I love visiting LA and never run out of things to do. You rent a car dirt-cheap [[$30 a day or less) and can go anywhere. Obviously many of the attractions [[Disney, Knotts, beaches, missions, etc.) are not really LA-specific but Southern CA. and are not tied to urbanity.

[iheartthed]

Yes it is. I would say being consistently within the top 10 American cities for intl tourists makes you a main center.

http://www.travelersdigest.com/5968-...ign-travelers/

http://skift.com/2014/06/18/20-most-...elers-in-2013/

It's the only city, besides Las Vegas for obvious reasons, that's not on the coast or in a warmer climate. International tourist go to the coasts first then when they want to go inland, they flock to Chicago. Walk down Michigan or State and you'll for sure hear 20 different languages spoken by obvious tourists.

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.

[poobert]

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?

[iheartthed]

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.

I'm not surprised that Boston ranks high as a destination but to be in the same league as Chicago is quite a feat for a city that 1) isn't singularly focused on tourism [[Orlando, Las Vegas, Honolulu), and 2) is a fraction of the size of Chicago.

ETA: Also, it doesn't look like Boston is the outlier. It looks like Chicago is the outlier...

You're right, though, Detroit's lack of draw as a tourist destination is related to urban quality of life issues. People probably don't visit for the same reasons the city has struggled to attract residents. [[No it's not the fucking schools, let's just get that out of the way now.)