spanky wrote:
New York doesn't have the same level of "must visit" attractions as London, Paris, or a very few other cities in the world do either.
What attractions are "must visit" that people travel from around the globe to see in New York? New York is just either the start or end of an international tourist's trip to the US. I'm struggling for 3-4 "must visit" attractions in New York for people around the world: Statue of Liberty? Hmmmm....maybe Times Square? Maybe?
Yes, they do. Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge, Times Square for sure. Then, you add in World Trade Center, Central Park, Wall Street, Empire State Building, Rockefeller Center/Radio City Music Hall, and Broadway and you can make whatever grouping you want to compare with any city in the world. If that isn't enough, you can add in Grand Central Station, Madison Square Garden(note: I was not impressed), a bunch of museums, the comedy club capital of the world. You can't honestly believe that NYC fails to have 3-4 "must visit" attractions. I'd find it hard to plan a trip to NYC for someone and not come up with more than 4 things they definitely need to do.
spanky wrote:
I guess my point is, cities aren't defined as "world class" because of a small collection of attractions. If so, I submit the greater Orlando/Kissimmee area. Cities get defined as WC based more on GD's definition. If we are basing "world class" on attractions that are must see - there are 5-6 cities in Italy alone that would be more world class than NY.
Are you arguing that New York City isn't a "world class" city.
Keep in mind that I'm not even saying Chicago isn't a world class city. I'm just saying it lacks some of the things that would make it easier. Chicago is actually attempting to add in those things as you can see in the Millennium Park area which is probably the #1 thing for tourists to do.