Chicago or Dallas, continued
Jan 18th, 2005 | 07:46 AM
#82
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
I'm enjoying the debate - To answer TravelDiva and Vittrad's questions I'm still reading and learning and certainly don't think you're all nuts.
I don't think Chicago sells itself well enough to a European (or perhaps worldwide) audience. It's true that we do look at Dallas through rose tinted spectacles because of the enormous popularity of the TV soap in the 1980s and also because Texas has a much stronger identity worldwide than Illinois does.
Yes I am booking to come along to Chicago and looking forward to it.
I don't think Chicago sells itself well enough to a European (or perhaps worldwide) audience. It's true that we do look at Dallas through rose tinted spectacles because of the enormous popularity of the TV soap in the 1980s and also because Texas has a much stronger identity worldwide than Illinois does.
Yes I am booking to come along to Chicago and looking forward to it.
Jan 18th, 2005 | 08:31 AM
#85
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
LondonEngland,
I was interested in your comment about the "Rose-Colored" image you in Europe have of Dallas. What I have found is that people in Europe have very little factual, realistic knowledge of the Texas city. On a tour bus in Munich, the tour guide asked everyone to state the size of his/her city. When I answered that the US Census counted over 5 millions in Greater Dallas in 2000, the woman was visibly stunned... the German tourists from Cologne thoutht I was mouthing absurdities...
I think that the same is true of Chicago people. They do not have a lot of hard information about the Texas cities... and also, they do not seem particularly articulate when they try to defend their city against a smaller one. They have an enormous self-image of their city, more a matter of civic pride than statistics.
If you say that Chicago does not project itself well in the rest of the world, I think you can see that in this thread.
Of course I do not contradict the general opinion that Chicago is larger in population and has more to see and do... I'm sure that you will enjoy your holiday there.
I was interested in your comment about the "Rose-Colored" image you in Europe have of Dallas. What I have found is that people in Europe have very little factual, realistic knowledge of the Texas city. On a tour bus in Munich, the tour guide asked everyone to state the size of his/her city. When I answered that the US Census counted over 5 millions in Greater Dallas in 2000, the woman was visibly stunned... the German tourists from Cologne thoutht I was mouthing absurdities...
I think that the same is true of Chicago people. They do not have a lot of hard information about the Texas cities... and also, they do not seem particularly articulate when they try to defend their city against a smaller one. They have an enormous self-image of their city, more a matter of civic pride than statistics.
If you say that Chicago does not project itself well in the rest of the world, I think you can see that in this thread.
Of course I do not contradict the general opinion that Chicago is larger in population and has more to see and do... I'm sure that you will enjoy your holiday there.
Jan 18th, 2005 | 08:33 AM
#86
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 827
Likes: 0
Well, being that I've been to several Texas cities, I'm pretty sure that I know the difference in feeling and culture between said cities and my own (please note I am not making a value judgement here least one be tempted to read that into my statement). Something that I would have NEVER gotten simply by reading a guidebook.
Jan 18th, 2005 | 08:56 AM
#87
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,379
Likes: 0
But statistics are empty numbers and meaningless without careful interpretation. Anyone can throw raw data about and try to snow casual listeners (believe me, it's done every day) and then say "but they're STATISTICS!" But it's still so much drivel.
For example, growth rates really don't have much to do with a city's worth as a vacation destination. I dare say Paris isn't adding citizens at the rate of, say, Phoenix. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I think Paris might have a little bit more to offer. Chicago's slower growth is typical of an older city, and I would argue that managed growth is much preferable to the unchecked sprawl of Houston, Dallas, suburban Phoenix, or, dare I say it, parts of southern California (the Irvine-ization of Orange County is ruining the last of the undeveloped sections).
A lot of people DO travel to Dallas, that is true. A huge number are forced to fly through DFW, for one thing (thanks, American Airlines). Business travel takes a lot of people into town as well. Tourists...? Nowhere near as many as go to Chicago. And with good reason: Much, much, much more to do, and much more a real city, with a vibrant and unbeatable downtown area.
For example, growth rates really don't have much to do with a city's worth as a vacation destination. I dare say Paris isn't adding citizens at the rate of, say, Phoenix. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I think Paris might have a little bit more to offer. Chicago's slower growth is typical of an older city, and I would argue that managed growth is much preferable to the unchecked sprawl of Houston, Dallas, suburban Phoenix, or, dare I say it, parts of southern California (the Irvine-ization of Orange County is ruining the last of the undeveloped sections).
A lot of people DO travel to Dallas, that is true. A huge number are forced to fly through DFW, for one thing (thanks, American Airlines). Business travel takes a lot of people into town as well. Tourists...? Nowhere near as many as go to Chicago. And with good reason: Much, much, much more to do, and much more a real city, with a vibrant and unbeatable downtown area.
Jan 18th, 2005 | 10:45 AM
#88
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
rjw_lgb_ca,
I'll agree with you that growth rates have nothing to do with tourism... I think the thread got sidetracked on the question of prices in Chicago vs Dallas. Someone argued that high Chicago prices were acceptable to people because of the city's greater value, and I argued that, on the contrary, high prices were stunting Chicago's growth, as people fled to more affordable and higher-value cities, both for tourism and residence.
Does Chicago have more tourists than Dallas? I'd assume it does. For one thing, i's better known. For another, there's nowhere else to go in the upper Midwest. And finally, it is larger and has more attractions than Dallas.
Still and all, Dallas does have millions of visitors per year, most of them non-business related, according to our marketing survys. About 60 million fly through the DFW airport, about 13 million visit the city, and about 7 million visit for non-business reasons. That is an enormous number of visitors, important in itself, without regard to Chiicago's numbers. The Dallas area has some pull.
My contention is that the only real differences between Chicago and Dallas are (1) size, and (2) a larger number of attractions in Chicago. Other than that, the cities are similar.
Comparing Dallas to cities like Los Angeles, New York, Washington-Baltimore, Las Vegas, Orlando... the differences are not merely a matter of size but of class. Dallas is a smaller Chicago, but not a smaller LA or New York. Dallas has more or less what Chicago has, except in smaller quantities, but LA and New York and Washington have things that Dallas does not.
For a 3 day visit, Dallas and Chicago will both saturate a visitor with places to go and things to do. If Dallas has 900 nightclubs, and Chicago has 1200, there is little practical advantage for Chicago's larger number. Same with restaurants, concerts, shows, museums, etc. If a visitor were going to spend a month, Chicago's greater numbers become an advantage.
I'll agree with you that growth rates have nothing to do with tourism... I think the thread got sidetracked on the question of prices in Chicago vs Dallas. Someone argued that high Chicago prices were acceptable to people because of the city's greater value, and I argued that, on the contrary, high prices were stunting Chicago's growth, as people fled to more affordable and higher-value cities, both for tourism and residence.
Does Chicago have more tourists than Dallas? I'd assume it does. For one thing, i's better known. For another, there's nowhere else to go in the upper Midwest. And finally, it is larger and has more attractions than Dallas.
Still and all, Dallas does have millions of visitors per year, most of them non-business related, according to our marketing survys. About 60 million fly through the DFW airport, about 13 million visit the city, and about 7 million visit for non-business reasons. That is an enormous number of visitors, important in itself, without regard to Chiicago's numbers. The Dallas area has some pull.
My contention is that the only real differences between Chicago and Dallas are (1) size, and (2) a larger number of attractions in Chicago. Other than that, the cities are similar.
Comparing Dallas to cities like Los Angeles, New York, Washington-Baltimore, Las Vegas, Orlando... the differences are not merely a matter of size but of class. Dallas is a smaller Chicago, but not a smaller LA or New York. Dallas has more or less what Chicago has, except in smaller quantities, but LA and New York and Washington have things that Dallas does not.
For a 3 day visit, Dallas and Chicago will both saturate a visitor with places to go and things to do. If Dallas has 900 nightclubs, and Chicago has 1200, there is little practical advantage for Chicago's larger number. Same with restaurants, concerts, shows, museums, etc. If a visitor were going to spend a month, Chicago's greater numbers become an advantage.
Jan 18th, 2005 | 10:50 AM
#89
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 827
Likes: 0
"My contention is that the only real differences between Chicago and Dallas are (1) size, and (2) a larger number of attractions in Chicago. Other than that, the cities are similar."
So, tell me where in Dallas I can see pre-Broadway productions with the full broadway cast (not the touring company)?
So, tell me where in Dallas I can see pre-Broadway productions with the full broadway cast (not the touring company)?
Jan 18th, 2005 | 11:09 AM
#95
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,379
Likes: 0
Oh Go, you're so sweet to try and save me! But the specious arguments being thrown about and called "facts backed up by statistics" are so absurd and laughable that they need to be shot down quickly and vigorously!
And who but someone who REALLY hasn't traveled anywhere outside their state (maybe their immediate metro area) would say something as patently ridiculous as this:
"My contention is that the only real differences between Chicago and Dallas are (1) size, and (2) a larger number of attractions in Chicago. Other than that, the cities are similar."
Believe me, you drop me in the middle of downtown Chicago, then in the middle of downtown Dallas-- I'll know the difference. The one where the streets aren't largely deserted, the one where every corner has something great to see and do, the one with that energizing jolt of creative energy and drive and connection and FUN-- that's Chicago.
And who but someone who REALLY hasn't traveled anywhere outside their state (maybe their immediate metro area) would say something as patently ridiculous as this:
"My contention is that the only real differences between Chicago and Dallas are (1) size, and (2) a larger number of attractions in Chicago. Other than that, the cities are similar."
Believe me, you drop me in the middle of downtown Chicago, then in the middle of downtown Dallas-- I'll know the difference. The one where the streets aren't largely deserted, the one where every corner has something great to see and do, the one with that energizing jolt of creative energy and drive and connection and FUN-- that's Chicago.
Jan 18th, 2005 | 11:15 AM
#97
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
There are parts of downtown San Francisco, Washington DC, Chicago, Manhattan, Dallas, etc, where the streets are deserted at night.
There are parts of downtown San Francisco, Washington DC, Chicago, Manhattan, Dallas, etc, where the streets are bright, lively, full of pedestrian traffic.
There are parts of downtown San Francisco, Washington DC, Chicago, Manhattan, Dallas, etc, where the streets are bright, lively, full of pedestrian traffic.
Jan 18th, 2005 | 11:25 AM
#98
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,379
Likes: 0
Old growth forests...? According to this website, you're not likely to find such areas near Chicago OR Dallas:
http://gorp.away.com/gorp/activity/w..._oldgrowth.htm
And I'm still floored by any contention that Chicago and Dallas are even remotely similar. Well, other than American Airlines maintaining each as a hub city. Chicago is a world-class center of finance, international commerce and culture, and has been for many, many generations. It is indeed on a par with New York and Boston and Washington. Comparisons with Los Angeles are futile, as LA is its own odd animal, as important as these world-class cities but in many ways completely unique. Dallas-- well, let's just say it's not playing in the same league as any of these destinations. And it probably doesn't need to.
http://gorp.away.com/gorp/activity/w..._oldgrowth.htm
And I'm still floored by any contention that Chicago and Dallas are even remotely similar. Well, other than American Airlines maintaining each as a hub city. Chicago is a world-class center of finance, international commerce and culture, and has been for many, many generations. It is indeed on a par with New York and Boston and Washington. Comparisons with Los Angeles are futile, as LA is its own odd animal, as important as these world-class cities but in many ways completely unique. Dallas-- well, let's just say it's not playing in the same league as any of these destinations. And it probably doesn't need to.
