US Cities Overlooked by Foreign Tourists

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

who knew?

can you ride all the rides?

I assume that you can, but I've never been after Labor Day. It's fairly popular, though. A lot of people from the Detroit area go during the Halloween season.

[mrnyc]

^ i have never paid any attention to cedar point after august.

although come to think of it now i have heard of halloweekends vias ads and stuff.

sounds nice though and extra business for them.

Originally Posted by hipster duck

That sounds about right.

I'd probably combine LA and Vegas in the same trip (if you're visiting LA, you're going to rent a car, anyway).

New Orleans is kind of hard because the city is interesting, but the surrounding area isn't. You'd probably have to fly in and fly out to another American destination to make it worth your while if you're coming from overseas.

Miami is kind of just a sun destination, if we're boiling things down. I'd probably cut it from the list.

San Francisco is a good city and also a good base for seeing a very diverse swath of American landscape: Big Sur, Yosemite, Redwoods, Napa valley. You could pack in a very good 2 week vacation.

New York City is the only American city that I'd fly across an ocean to visit, then turn around and go home.

---

I think a lot of people underestimate how much of a commitment an overseas vacation is. It's at least two 8 hour flights (more if you're coming from Asia or Australia), and two lost vacation days due to flights and jet lag. If you have kids, then multiply the cost by two and halve the amount of things you can pack into a day. It's several thousand dollars, and the exchange rate for most major currencies vs. the US dollar is not favorable. The world is big and there are a lot of places that a tourist can go that are not in the US.

If they're lucky, a person living overseas without relatives or business trips may visit the US about 4 times in their life. They're probably going to be very choosy about which places they're going to visit, and that's before factoring in other things, like age and situational limitations (e.g. hiking to the bottom of the Grand Canyon and back up again is not in the cards for most 70 year olds or for parents with children under 10).

^ very good point about how hard a big trip like that can be, espcially with kids in tow.

that either limits things ... or opens them up in america if you get a car.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I kinda see your point, though many tourists (including Europeans, Asians, etc.) visit Quebec City. And almost no one visits Milton-Keynes, unless they're urban planning geeks I suppose.

I would say that quaint towns and cities will draw visitors no matter where they are located. This includes Europeans.

If you think about it, New Yorkers live in the ultimate skyscraper jungle, but that doesn't mean cities like Hong Kong which are also skyscraper jungles aren't appealling places to visit for New Yorkers.

Provided they have a unique twist on the genre.

Quebec City (and the province of Quebec more broadly) I'd argue offers a fairly unique glimpse at what the "French" have done with a new world/nordic/(North) American setting, and what they might have done with a larger share of this continent had it remained under French control for longer.

In and of itself, that's a reasonably interesting visitor niche. On a more basic level, most people wouldn't expect a city that looks and feels like Quebec City in this part of the world.

My point is that Quebec City's "quaintness" (which is the parts tourists visit by and large) looks very similar to France. My issue isn't with quaintness per se, as there are quaint towns in other parts of North America that would be more different and worthwhile to hop across the Atlantic.

Originally Posted by JManc

Europeans visit other European cities all the time. It's more about the experience and you're not going to find French Canada in Europe.

Yes, and those European cities are closer and makes more sense to visit. Montreal, Sherbrooke, Trois Rivieres, the Gaspesie, etc are more distinctly Quebecois. I mean, so is Quebec City, but Old Quebec, which is where tourists focus their energies, is like a copy-and-paste of France, aside from some buildings like Edifice Price.

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Except that one of those cities offers a good urban & cultural experience and the other doesn't. That's more important than offering a different experience - it's not as if Europeans are coming in droves to visit Phoenix either.

Besides, Quebec City may be North America's most "European" city, but it's still distinctively Quebecois/North American.

Not everybody is an SSPer looking for a "good" urban experience. Phoenix is a major travel destination, after all.

[begratto]

Originally Posted by ue

Yes, and those European cities are closer and makes more sense to visit. Montreal, Sherbrooke, Trois Rivieres, the Gaspesie, etc are more distinctly Quebecois. I mean, so is Quebec City, but Old Quebec, which is where tourists focus their energies, is like a copy-and-paste of France, aside from some buildings like Edifice Price.

I disagree; Quebec City is pretty much its own thing. It certainly looks like it could belong in Europe, but I can't think of any French city that could be mistaken for Quebec City - and I have been to France multiple times.

I can see the appeal of QC for tourists, even if they are European - the place is charming.

[dc_denizen]

Quebec City should certainly be visited by Europeans. The boreal nature of the landscape, the (to the french) strange dialect, etc.

not every city looks like Florence. compare Lyon to Manchester. Compare Stockholm to Rome.

[dc_denizen]

If I were European, the ideal east coast vacation would be

4 days NYC
train to Mystic, CT, spend 1 day
rent a car
drive to Newport, RI 2 days there
drive to Providence and return car, 1 day there
train to
Boston, 2 days
train back

In Los Angeles

4 days in LA
train to San Diego
1 day in SD, rent a bike and explore downtown/up to La Jolla/Salk/Pacific Beach etc
rent a car and drive back through LA and stop by Ventura, to Santa Barbara, and continue up the PCH
1-2 days Monterey/Santa Cruz/Big Sur
3 days SF
1 day Napa

[Nantais]

Originally Posted by begratto

I disagree; Quebec City is pretty much its own thing. It certainly looks like it could belong in Europe, but I can't think of any French city that could be mistaken for Quebec City - and I have been to France multiple times.

I can see the appeal of QC for tourists, even if they are European - the place is charming.

I agree. Though I've never been to Québec city, from what I've seen of it on the net, it really doesn't look like any French city. I guess that, for non-French-speaking people, seeing signs in French language and some old buildings are enough to feel like in France, but, to a French, there isn't any doubt that Québec city is a very different place than France.
Also, what drives a lot of French tourists in Québec (not only Québec city, but above all, Montréal and also all of the Québec's wild areas) is not the "European feel" of the place, but the possibility to live a pure North American experience in their native language. Like a perfect mix of a sense of exoticism and familiarity.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by 10023

I think you could say Chicago is overlooked because it’s the 3rd largest metro but only 9th in visitors (and most of them are probably business travelers).

But America just doesn’t do cities well, generally. There are probably more cities of interest to foreign tourists in some European countries, especially Italy, than in America despite it being a much larger place. The lack of history in most cities is obviously a big part of this.

Generally agree, but I think alot of the tourists do things like attractions or tours. Living in coastal California we see tons of foreign tourists that are traveling the California coastline, you'll see Euros take motorcycle tours across the west, route 66, painted desert etc. also natural wonders, national parks etc. Our top ten cities get decent numbers.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Nantais

Also, what drives a lot of French tourists in Québec (not only Québec city, but above all, Montréal and also all of the Québec's wild areas) is not the "European feel" of the place, but the possibility to live a pure North American experience in their native language. Like a perfect mix of a sense of exoticism and familiarity.

This is basically the reason I love Quebec, and think so highly of Montreal and Quebec City, even though I'm an English speaking American. It feels foreign enough to feel exotic and exciting, but also feels familiar and comfortably North American.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

If I were European, the ideal east coast vacation would be

4 days NYC
train to Mystic, CT, spend 1 day
rent a car
drive to Newport, RI 2 days there
drive to Providence and return car, 1 day there
train to
Boston, 2 days
train back

Is it worth a daytrip to Philly (from NYC)?

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by Nantais

I agree. Though I've never been to Québec city, from what I've seen of it on the net, it really doesn't look like any French city. I guess that, for non-French-speaking people, seeing signs in French language and some old buildings are enough to feel like in France, but, to a French, there isn't any doubt that Québec city is a very different place than France.
Also, what drives a lot of French tourists in Québec (not only Québec city, but above all, Montréal and also all of the Québec's wild areas) is not the "European feel" of the place, but the possibility to live a pure North American experience in their native language. Like a perfect mix of a sense of exoticism and familiarity.

I've simply never been to Quebec either. They seem grumpy at us because too many older French made fun of their accent and all, kind of like the older French did to the Belgians.
I find those accent issues and complexes to be completely meaningless, like I really don't care. So long as I can understand what they say, I don't mind.
It's unfair to be grumpy at us for those old silly things, isn't it?

Now, as for the physical looks of their town, I noticed some grayish stone to their real old buildings from the 17th or 18th centuries, that looks very much like some stone from Brittany, like from Saint-Malo, Dinard and some touristy spots out there. Some sort of stone typically from the Northern Atlantic Euro style.

They also have some old Mansard roofs, which is quite a reminder of our own country.
Their real older preserved town doesn't seem so remote from what they did over some regions of this country by the same era.

I can remember, long ago, I read on this forum that some stone was imported from Scotland to their country, which I found astonishing because it means they had to ship it up to the other side of the ocean. That would be quite strange, right? Even hard to believe.
If I had been a local businessman and developer over there, I guess I would simply have dug the local soil to get some stone.
But it was up to them, eh.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by muppet

Is it worth a daytrip to Philly (from NYC)?

Are you visiting NYC for the first time? If so, no, not worth it. You will probably have underestimated the time spent in NYC.

If you're already familiar with NYC, then yes.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by muppet

Is it worth a daytrip to Philly (from NYC)?

hmm, I would say the northern east coast NYC metropolitan area is far prettier than the southwards. NJ and CT have vastly different built environments, densely populated areas of NJ are far uglier and generally blue collar (even though income levels and demographics are similar) than CT. and the shore destinations in NJ are not on the train route to Philly they way the CT shore towns are on the train route to Boston.

as an urbanist, Philadelphia is worth a train trip, but it's not set up for tourists the way Boston is. The neighborhoods can be kind of blue collar and gritty, outside of the central areas (eg South Philly is very dense and vibrant but wouldn't call it touristy).

I would argue that Philly has better food/bars than Boston but you kind of have to know the city a bit

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by mousquet

I've simply never been to Quebec either. They seem grumpy at us because too many older French made fun of their accent and all, kind of like the older French did to the Belgians.
I find those accent issues and complexes to be completely meaningless, like I really don't care. So long as I can understand what they say, I don't mind.
It's unfair to be grumpy at us for those old silly things, isn't it?

LOL we're not really grumpy at you guys anymore, and haven't been for a long time.

Just don't forget that when you come here, YOU are the one with the accent!

[Pavlov's Dog]

Originally Posted by 10023

I’m sure they do, but few people travel for museums (or which Europe obviously has many).

Quite a few people do actually.

I live in Norway a dual American/Norwegian citizen. A colleague of mine and his wife (who works as a curator at the Munch Museum) plan their vacations around art. Their favorite destinations any where in the world are LA, Miami and Tokyo. They say that is where the most interesting modern art is being made and shown.

Another friend works as an art advisor in a private banking environment. She basically advises her clients on art which is both visually appealing and has a chance to appreciate in value. Her favorite art cities are LA, New York and Berlin.

A lot of Americans have an inferiority complex about art and culture but frankly when you've visited enough of the touted European art museums you get sick and tired of portraits and religious art. The same goes for European tourists. The Louvre and Uffizi are example of massive piles devoted to endless amounts of highly repetitive art that frankly doesn't resonate all that well with modern tastes. Not saying there isn't a lot of fantastic art there and at similar museums but it can get somewhat tedious.

The US is the shit when it comes to contemporary art and people with means are willing to travel to and shell out unconscionable sums of money to visit a city, live like a king and eat out and buy art.

I would say the US has some very underrated art museums. As someone else mentioned even the LA trio of The Broad, Getty and Geffen Contemporary are all world leading even if most people have never heard of them. Also the Chicago Institute is a fantastic museum.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

Route 66, Americana, Abraham Lincoln, Chicago

Chicago really undersells itself. Those are really great things they could promote more. The Chicago River is completely unknown. My Norwegian wife actually prefers Chicago to New York. She fills it is similar but at a more manageable scale, pace and price. It has the same class of amenities but without the attitude. New Yorkers are condescending where Chicagoans are welcoming. They can claim Obama, Al Capone, American Gothic and Nighthawks.





Chicago is the heart of the Heartland and should market itself as such. It can also claim to be the melting pot of flyover country and an easily digestible destination for blues, jazz, bbq, etc for people who don't want to venture deeper into the core of America. It can relatively easily make itself into a destination that any self respecting foreign tourists. It is everything their countries are not.

[SIGSEGV]

We really need "Route 66 bus tours" starting right outside the Art Institute. Any European city would have something like that.

[JManc]

Route 66 from Chicago to Santa Monica? That would be incredibly boring. There are some charming parts in the southwest but the vast majority pretty unremarkable.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by JManc

Route 66 from Chicago to Santa Monica? That would be incredibly boring. There are some charming parts in the southwest but the vast majority pretty unremarkable.

Lol, yea. That wouldn't be too popular. And a route 66 tour wouldn't showcase Chicago lol.

[Crawford]

I've tried to drive some stretches of Route 66 in the SW, around Gallup, NM. It sounds, in theory, interesting, but I wouldn't do it again. The interstate continually cuts off the remaining historic bits, which are rotting away. Much of the iconic 50's-era stuff has been torn down, or has been remodeled to be unrecognizable. Most of the time, you wouldn't even know you're on that famed road.

If, back in the 70's, preservationists had their act together, it could have been an amazing route. But it's more just the typical rural American pre-interstate highway dreck. An occasional seedy motel, an abandoned gas station, etc.