US Cities Overlooked by Foreign Tourists

[BigDipper 80]

The easy answer is probably "any city that's not on the coast", but there are definitely some interior cities that stand out more than others for those tourists who want to try something different from New York or Seattle. Denver jumps to mind as one that's probably not considered "A-tier" for foreign tourists traveling halfway around the globe but would be worthy of a trip in its own right, and maybe some of the old river cities like Cincinnati or Louisville could fit that bill as well. Curious what other folks think.

[dc_denizen]

Orlando is the #3 destination so that tells you something about the sophistication of the average foreign tourist

Chicago
New Orleans (mostly domestic tourists)
Portland before the riots
Charleston and Savannah
Los Angeles
San Francisco

[Pedestrian]

In order to be worth a visit by foreigners, a city should have something unique to DO as well as a unique CULTURE, be it the food, the nightlife, SIN . . . .something.

Denver might be OK as a gateway to skiing or hiking in the Rockies but I don't see it as a place to go and stay for more than a night or two. Otherwise it's just a medium-big American city with a better-than-average view (off in the distance) and a pretty vibrant business life. Very few people go to Germany to visit Frankfort.

When you say "coasts" you don't say if you count the Gulf of Mexico and plenty of foreigners, especially from French-speaking places, visit New Orleans. Many probably should visit Chicago (on the Great Lakes) which has so many vibrant ethnic subcultures as well as everything it should have as one of the world's great cities. Washington DC isn't strictly on the coast.

There are specific reasons for short visits to other places: Louisville, KY for the Derby, Phoenix or Flagstaff as a jumping-off point for the Grand Canyon, maybe St. Louis or wherever on the river for a Mississippi River boat cruise, Jackson, WY for more skiing, Las Vegas for . . . Las Vegas.

[iheartthed]

I think a lot of American cities make it very hard for tourists to discover them due to lack of transit infrastructure, so I don't think there are many that are easy places to visit but still don't attract tourists. One city that probably does fit the criteria is Philly. Philadelphia has relatively good transit, intact urban neighborhoods, and top cultural institutions. It is also really easy to get to from NYC, but being so close to NYC might actually work against it as a tourist destination.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Orlando is the #3 destination so that tells you something about the sophistication of the average foreign tourist

Chicago
New Orleans (mostly domestic tourists)
Portland before the riots
Charleston and Savannah
Los Angeles
San Francisco

Three of those are in the top 10 highest cities for international visits... I think anything on this list can automatically be disqualified from being considered "overlooked":

1. New York
2. Miami
3. Los Angeles
4. Orlando
5. San Francisco
6. Las Vegas
7. Honolulu
8. DC
9. Chicago
10. Boston

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


I agree with Pedestrian that in order for a city to be "overlooked" it needs to offer up a unique attraction beyond just being a half decent mid-sized metro; and low numbers of tourists relative to what it offers. Given that, among big cities I think there's a pretty clear answer for one that's overlooked by both domestic and international travellers: Philly.

Pittsburgh and Detroit are also really interesting cities that are very much off the beaten tourist path. I haven't been to either yet (was supposed to go to both this year if not for COVID!), but everyone I know who has been has raved about them.

[dubu]

there are a bunch of nice mountain cities. i dont know how you would pic except what is closest. like if you are coming from the east then denver and from the west then, i dont think the airports are big enough for any other mountain city. so denver is the only one maybe.

[mhays]

Philly, definitely.

Pittsburgh is a nice city with mojo, and it deserves more attention than it gets. But to fly overseas just to see it? Maybe as part of a four-week Americana tour.

The OP mentioned Seattle as one of the non-overlooked cities. I'd peg us in the second tier however. Last I checked, our international visitor stats were about even with Philly...not bad for a smaller city, but not huge.

Ihearthed, I agree about the transit point. If you can't see most things easily on foot or by transit, it's a pain in the ass to visit, and below the common expectations of someone from Asia or Europe.

In fact, most US cities are pretty desolate from a world perspective. You can fill your time anywhere, and we nerds probably like to visit cities to understand them, but it's hard to imagine the masses doing that.

[bossabreezes]

The trio of Charleston, Savannah and New Orleans come to mind for me. They offer very distinctive culture and are quite beautiful/interesting.

To an extent, I think there's a bit of stigma towards them since they're in what we would call the ''Deep South'' and people can't seem to grasp visiting these places today is not racist and doesn't support racism or backwardness. In fact, these places are quite progressive and modern these days, but maintain their old south character. This might be more for domestic tourists than international, though.

They are much smaller cities than most of the popular tourist spots, which might be why they don't seem overrun by foreign tourists. New Orleans clearly gets the most, mainly for the fact that is is bigger and offers better infrastructure than the others.

[10023]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Three of those are in the top 10 highest cities for international visits... I think anything on this list can automatically be disqualified from being considered "overlooked":

1. New York
2. Miami
3. Los Angeles
4. Orlando
5. San Francisco
6. Las Vegas
7. Honolulu
8. DC
9. Chicago
10. Boston

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


I agree with Pedestrian that in order for a city to be "overlooked" it needs to offer up a unique attraction beyond just being a half decent mid-sized metro; and low numbers of tourists relative to what it offers. Given that, among big cities I think there's a pretty clear answer for one that's overlooked by both domestic and international travellers: Philly.

Pittsburgh and Detroit are also really interesting cities that are very much off the beaten tourist path. I haven't been to either yet (was supposed to go to both this year if not for COVID!), but everyone I know who has been has raved about them.

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.

[Pedestrian]

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.

America has done cities as well as most since WW II. Your last point is the only valid one: It's hard for a city less than 100 years old (other than perhaps an older native American settlement) to compete with one 2000 years old. But if you look at European cities that were pretty much wiped off the map and rebuilt after WW II, they aren't very attractive (unless the old was rebuilt as it was).

[iheartthed]

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).

If you remove the cities where the economy is overly/solely tourism (Miami, Orlando, Las Vegas, Honolulu), Chicago isn't that overlooked. Only SF and DC rank higher in that case.

Originally Posted by 10023

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.

I think there are a couple ways to look at it. More people would probably visit cities beyond America's first tier if they were easier to visit. But, at the same time, most tourists don't often go past the largest city in any single country. Countries like Italy and Spain are pretty unique for having several cities that are well visited by foreigners.

[dubu]

theres a lot of history in the us but you dont see it. most people dont know the us did a lot in making all this technology. the us is stuck between the old fancy buildings times and futuristic cities. so people go to dubai or japan ect. some people just see the us as a 3rd world country. but im glad there isnt dubai in the us, its kinda cool. just like those real old cities, its like going to a different world i bet.

[JManc]

Most American cities that might have something to offer lack the reputation and PR spin to bring in the tourism. I mean so many people go their wholes lives without ever visiting the worlds biggest ball of twine.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by dubu

some people just see the us as a 3rd world country..

Then they need glasses:

Per capita GDP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...PP)_per_capita

We don't build many ego buildings these days. Buildings have to make economic sense to be approved either as spec projects by for-profit developers or by corporate boards for their HQ. We don't have an emir, king or ruling party trying to keep everybody at work to prevent "civil unrest" willing to build fancy projects for the notoriety. And unlike, say, Japan a couple of decades ago or China more recently, we aren't borrowing money to build Bridges to nowhere". But we could afford to do any of that if it there were money to be made or sufficient votes to be gotten by doing it.

[dc_denizen]

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.

I think this is debatable..american cities have a ton of variety. and people aren't visiting Italy or Germany to go to Milan or Frankfurt, they go to Florence, Rome, Nice, Berlin, etc where the weather is nice and there is a lot to do.

If Chicago was in Europe it would be the #1 city. (or at least competitive with London and Paris)

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Three of those are in the top 10 highest cities for international visits... I think anything on this list can automatically be disqualified from being considered "overlooked":

1. New York
2. Miami
3. Los Angeles
4. Orlando
5. San Francisco
6. Las Vegas
7. Honolulu
8. DC
9. Chicago
10. Boston

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


I agree with Pedestrian that in order for a city to be "overlooked" it needs to offer up a unique attraction beyond just being a half decent mid-sized metro; and low numbers of tourists relative to what it offers. Given that, among big cities I think there's a pretty clear answer for one that's overlooked by both domestic and international travellers: Philly.

Pittsburgh and Detroit are also really interesting cities that are very much off the beaten tourist path. I haven't been to either yet (was supposed to go to both this year if not for COVID!), but everyone I know who has been has raved about them.

Of those, Miami, vegas, and Orlando are the US equivalent of Marbella or Benidorm or some chintzy crap elsewhere in spain.

I mean why come across the ocean to visit Miami when you can take a 2 hour flight to Nice or Naples?

In a sane world, where tourists visited cities worth seeing, Philly and LA and SF and Boston would vastly outrank them.

[ChiMIchael]

I think what it comes down to is whether foreigners desire to consume US culture when they visit.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

America has done cities as well as most since WW II.

Surely you meant the opposite? 70 years ago virtually every American city had at the very least a functionally urban core filled with elegant buildings and mass transit; while the skyscrapers, industry, and wealth would have been unparalleled at the time.




Versus today where only a small handful of cities still have that - or even their peak populations from 1950. The level of destruction & depopulation that has occurred since is unprecedented in peacetime.

[Docere]

New Orleans and Philadelphia come to mind.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

That is kinda depressing. They literally paved paradise for parking.