Over the past three years, I've driven more than 45,000 miles on interstates and country roads of the Midwest. For sure, I've seen a lot of cornfields. But I've also seen a great deal of lush beauty, of landscapes both stark and seductive. What we lack in mountain ranges we more than make up for in rolling hills, secluded valleys, hidden lakes and rivers -- especially rivers, from the sprawling Mississippi to streams winding slowly beneath sycamores and shady oaks.
In short, we've got a natural area for tourists. But we don't have any tourists. Or, at least, not many, nowhere near the tourist traffic we should be getting.
There are probably several reasons for this, but the main one is the terrible job we do -- or rather, that our states do -- in promoting the Midwest as a tourist destination. As in so much else, Midwestern states compete with each other for tourists, when they should be competing with other regions in the global tourism market. If they worked together to promote the region's considerable natural beauties and cultural draws, they could be reaping the business that now goes to areas on the two coasts, which long ago learned how to promote themselves.
I'm not talking about the entire Midwest, of course. Much of our region -- southern Michigan, central Illinois, northern Indiana, northwestern and central Iowa -- is really flat. Vistas on these tablelands are breathtaking only if you smoke a lot.
But much of France, Germany and the Netherlands are flat, too, and it doesn't seem to slow up these countries, which know how to accentuate the positive.
So what's the positive here in the Midwest? Let me count the ways.
The Mississippi River valley, of course, pretty much all the way south from Red Wing in Minnesota past Winona, through the mighty bluffs in northeastern Iowa and southwestern Wisconsin, down through the atmospheric old river towns like Dubuque and Fort Madison. The Mississippi is the mightiest river of them all and, while it gets some tourists, it doesn't begin to compete with other, but not necessarily greater, natural wonders like the Niagara Falls.
There are other river valleys, like the Illinois River with its bald eagles, the Chippewa and Wisconsin valleys in Wisconsin, the Wabash in Indiana. Some friends went rafting on the Maquoketa River in Iowa. Who knew? A hidden gem indeed.
Eastern Iowa is Grant Wood territory, all rolling and wooded hills, with historic little towns like Spillville, where Dvorak wrote his American Quartet. Southern Iowa is impoverished but achingly beautiful. So is southern Indiana, especially Brown County. Minnesota, of course, has its lakes and northern Wisconsin has both lakes and forests. The Leelanau Peninsula in northern Michigan is no secret: it booms with tourists. But not many people know about the Lake of Egypt, in southern Illinois.
Chicago draws in the tourists to hear music, gawk at architecture, eat pizza: tourism is now the city's number-one industry. But it gets most of its tourists from the Midwest, bleeding other Midwestern tourist attractions as surely as it bleeds the region's small towns of their young people. The city's tourist promotion budget is about $5 million, about what New York City spends on tourist advertising in Europe alone. The upshot is that Chicago can advertise itself within a radius of about 500 miles, assuring that it will remain a flyover city for foreign tourists on their way from New York to Disneyland.
Other Midwestern cities miss out on even this modest bonanza. Some, let's face it, are challenged. There's little reason to go to Detroit except to gamble or to Cleveland except to visit the Rock and Roll Museum or see a game, and no reason at all to stay there once the gambling and the games end.
But Milwaukee has its sensational Calatrava-designed art museum, worth the trip in itself, with plenty of good restaurants and night life in the refurbished Fifth Ward and beyond. Minneapolis is a beautiful city with fine theater, music and food. Indianapolis, once deserted at night, is beginning to hum, and Des Moines is getting a reputation as a great place to both live and visit. Grand Rapids, revitalized by health-related philanthropy, has a sparkling downtown and some fine hotels along the Grand River.
College towns are some of the Midwest's jewels. Madison is no secret: it ranks with Austin as one of the nation's most vibrant small cities. Both Iowa City, home of the University of Iowa, and Bloomington, home of Indiana University, look exactly like the idyllic college towns they are.
Columbus, southeast of Indianapolis, is an architectural museum, thanks to enlightened philanthropy which has brought in the world's greatest architects to design its churches and schools: definitely worth the trip. So is Pella, Iowa, where the support of big corporations such as Pella Windows has preserved a delightful town center.
Most Midwestern cities, even those in decline, retain fine orchestras, ballet companies, art museums. Many have major league teams: most others field good minor leagues teams in various sports.
A night out at the riverside park in Davenport, Iowa, watching the Quad City River Rats play, is a fan's delight.
Apologies to all the places I've omitted. But you get the picture. The Midwest is both visually and culturally exciting and should be packing in the tourists.
But it doesn't. Why?
One reason is a lack of amenities. The Midwest has a scattering of good B&Bs, but not enough alternatives to chain motels. Too much of the region is a gastronomic desert: outside major cities and a handful of tourist meccas like the Leelanau Peninsula, fine dining runs the gamut from Denny's to Applebees. Much of this scarcity, however, is a chicken-and-egg affair: if there are too few good restaurants to draw in hungry tourists, there also are too few tourists to support good restaurants.
Which brings us back to the original problem -- a fragmented and incompetent tourism promotion policy that guarantees that when the world's tourists pick their destinations, the Midwest gets left off the list.
Part of the problem is inadequate funding. If Chicago's budget limits the city to talking to its Midwestern neighbors, other cities and states are even more strapped for funds. Certainly, none has the money to mount a campaign aimed at tourists around the nation and around the world.
A second and related problem is the fact that each Midwestern state goes after tourists on its own. The idea of a joint Midwestern tourist program doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone. The driftless area where Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois meet owns lovely scenery and atmospheric old towns, but it remains largely overlooked because the four states never promote it as the single region it is. Tourists who come to Chicago could easily be lured into Indiana, Wisconsin or Michigan, but these four states compete for these tourists instead of sharing them.
A major PGA golf tournament was held last summer at Whispering Straits, north of Milwaukee. For four days, the tournament appeared for hours on nationwide television, with Lake Michigan in the background of most shots. It was a golden opportunity for the four states that border Lake Michigan to promote the lake and its shores as a regional tourist draw. But they blew it.
Similarly, Lake Erie is shared by four states, plus southern Ontario. As with Lake Michigan, the whole should be much greater than the sum of its parts. But so far, the parts insist on competing, not cooperating, with a zero-sum result.
Can anything be done about this? Probably not, so long as state governments and state legislatures control all the tourism efforts by their states. But what about the towns and cities around Lake Michigan or Lake Erie getting together on their own, to promote their shared asset? What about the towns and counties in that driftless area mounting their own tourism promotion?
Midwesterners don't like to brag. But we've got a lot to brag about. Perhaps its time to do some of this bragging together, loud enough so the rest of the world can hear.
For more information on economic development, visit the In the News section of the Global Midwest Web site.
I agree that we need to do a better job of attracting tourists to the Midwest, especially to the areas other than Chicago. As a Michigander and a Wolverine, though, I have to say that it's strange to read about Midwestern college towns without a mention of Ann Arbor.
I did have one error to note: Austin is not a small city. It's the 15th-largest in the United States with nearly 790,000 people (three times as large as Madison, and larger than every Midwestern city but Chicago, Detroit, and Indianapolis). It may be just the fourth-largest in Texas, but that doesn't make it small.
Posted by: Derek | Friday, December 03, 2010 at 09:46 AM
You name jewels in Milwaukee and Indianapolis (which I've very familiar with), but say there's nothing to do in Cleveland outside of the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame? You, sir, are a moron.
Posted by: Shut Up | Friday, December 03, 2010 at 10:23 AM
It is ironic that this statement is then followed by this statement:
Detroit continues to be renowned for its music and burgeoning art scene. The Cleveland in which I live is home to one of the most visited national parks in the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, a restaurant culture that receives global attention on a regular basis, a Great Lake, a multitude of unique neighborhoods representing cultures from around the world, and a Big Five orchestra.
Your argument is valid, but I fear that you seriously undermine it by repeating old prejudices about cities like Detroit and Cleveland. Until we Midwesterners stop denigrating our own region and its assets, how can we expect the rest of the world to recognize what we have to share?
Posted by: Christopher | Friday, December 03, 2010 at 10:38 AM
'(L)ittle reason to go to Detroit'?!?!?! When was the last time you visited Detroit? Mr. Longworth, I am a faithful reader of your blog but I find this to be a very arguable claim, and very counter to your contention in paragraph 3 that our sub-regions should be working together, not cannibalizing one another.
I could write a book about things to do in Detroit, but here are 2 places to start:
Posted by: Andy | Friday, December 03, 2010 at 10:38 AM
"There's little reason to go to Detroit except to gamble or to Cleveland except to visit the Rock and Roll Museum or see a game, and no reason at all to stay there once the gambling and the games end." Yes Indianapolis is the cultural capital of the midwest yet Cleveland is good for nothing but the R&R Hall of Fame. It is offensive to make such uneducated blanket statements and it takes credibility from the rest of your argument. Cleveland has the best orchestra in the entire country and one of the best art museums in the Midwest yet there is nothing to see. Cleveland has the second largest theater district in the country. Cleveland has also been praised for one of the best dining scenes in the midwest. Plan a trip to Cleveland and reeducate yourself.
Posted by: Mike | Friday, December 03, 2010 at 11:16 AM
This blog would like to recognize the corresponding conversation sparked by this post on the UrbanOhio.com forum, in "The Official *I Love Cleveland* thread". You can follow the conversation here and at http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,4179.new.html.
natininja
11:09:31 AM
Richard Longworth doesn't love Cleveland.
"There's little reason to go to Detroit except to gamble or to Cleveland except to visit the Rock and Roll Museum or see a game, and no reason at all to stay there once the gambling and the games end."
punch
11:18:06 AM
It is kind of ironic that his whole argument is that the midwest (great lakes states, actually) could benefit from his attempts to expose to the world the wonderful tourits destinations of the area, but then thinks the only thing to do in Cleveland is to vist the Rock n Roll hall of fame.
Sounds like another "the urbanist"
StrapHanger
11:22:38 AM
^Do you mean the Urbanophile? If so, that's what came to my mind to. Sigh, if only Cleveland could offer visitors as much as Devenport, IA.
punch
11:29:46 AM
Yep, that is what I meant. Davenport! Man, start smaller, without the rock hall the only reason to stop in Cleveland would be the BP station on 9th and the innerbelt, but only in emergencies.
With all these self described urban experts, its funny the person who captured the past, present and future of the city was a sports reporter for ESPN.
ColDayMan
11:36:08 AM
And that BP Station is always bussin' heads with me! Lawd, don't get me started!
Avogadro
11:46:57 AM
Wow, there are incredible contradictions throughout.
He follows this: "There are probably several reasons for this, but the main one is the terrible job we do -- or rather, that our states do -- in promoting the Midwest as a tourist destination" with his statement about Detroit and Cleveland, and then states things like: "Most Midwestern cities, even those in decline, retain fine orchestras, ballet companies, art museums."
Maybe I'm just sore that the Cleveland Orchestra and Cleveland Museum of Art have difficulty competing with the Peoria Philharmonic and the nature exhibits at Ted Nugent's bowhunter's paradise in Jackson, Michigan.
natininja
11:52:09
arenn is not a Cleveland hater. Nor is he a Detroit hater, for that matter. My bet is he would take issue with what Longworth said there.
I think Longworth doesn't like Ohio in general.
The contrast between Renn's and Longworth's focal points, as suggested by their blogs, highlights how the Midwest is just too big to be addressed as one entity. Longworth seems to generally focus from Chicago/Indy/Columbus(IN) west, while Renn seems to focus from Chicago east. You could probably find someone else in, say, Omaha, who claims to be a Midwest blogger and considers Chicago to be outside of their sphere akin to NYC for Renn.
StrapHanger
12:32:17 PM
^What reminded me of arenn in this Longworth post was the very low substance to knowledge ratio. I had never heard of Longworth before now, so haven't explored his blog, but like most urbanophile posts, that Longworth post is well written and includes lots of information, but is devoid of practical insight, IMHO. Then again, I find most of the marketing/regional econ development chatter to be unconvincing, so I'm pretty dim on the whole industry and its commentators.
Posted by: Global Midwest Initiative | Friday, December 03, 2010 at 12:04 PM
Really? Grand Rapids has more than Cleveland? Really? I've been to Grand Rapids and Cleveland. What the heck are you talking about? There's more to do in the University Circle area of Cleveland than all of Grand Rapids and its burbs. The UC area isn't part of the RnR Hall of Fame area and D'town but is an Uptown area. So there's more than you think.
It's not that Grand Rapids is bad...it's pretty small. Are you from there? To be 100% honest you don't mention Canton which has a better draw to tourists with the Pro Football Hall of Fame than anything within 75 miles of Grand Rapids.
I think you need to actually visit Cleveland...not "a game". It's in the Midwest, kinda.
Posted by: Ryan Dorsey | Friday, December 03, 2010 at 02:53 PM
This is my comment which I posted on the "I love Cleveland" thread at UrbanOhio.com. I felt if I was going to share my opinion with the other UO'ers, I should also share it with the author of this article. "This guy really doesn't know what he's talking about if he mentions Milwaukee's and Minniapolis' food scenes but says nothing about Cleveland's, arguably one of the best in the US. He obviously doesn't read food blogs, know who Anthony Bourdain is (for his love of the city), know about our Top Chef, or read anything by Michael Ruhlman who has one of the best food blogs out there and is Cleveland-centric. Yet he celebrates Des Moines. I've been to Des Moines. There is nothing downtown and every building is connected by a skyway. The suburbs were nice, though:) Just an ignorantly sweeping statement about Cleveland, a city he obviously knows nothing about."
Posted by: Jeremy | Friday, December 03, 2010 at 03:02 PM
It seems my passing reference to Cleveland has touched a nerve. The reaction speaks well for both Cleveland and its residens. Every town needs citizens ready to defend and promote their city, and Cleveland has them.
That said, it's important not to let defensive chauvinism block a recognition of civic needs. Chicago's "second city" mentality too often keeps us from taking the criticisms of outsiders seriously. Cleveland, I think, is not immune to this.
The Cleveland Orchestra is terrific. So are the professional sports teams. University Circle would grace any city. The Cleveland Clinic may be the anchor for the city's revival. The theater district has made great strides. These are gems that tourists should be discovering.
But honestly, folks, how many tourists are you drawing? How many people come from far and near not to see a game or hear a concert but to visit Cleveland itself? How many people come to a game or to Severance Hall or to a theater, park their car, see a show or a game, get in their car and drive back home? In contrast, how many people are inclined to stay in the city, take a hotel room downtown, spend a few days shopping or dining, making Cleveland a true tourist destination? How many outsiders stroll leisurely along Euclid or Superior, soaking up the urban atmosphere?
I think you see what I mean. It's easy for a once-mighty city like Cleveland to scoff at Indianapolis, Milwaukee or Grand Rapids. But all these cities have really worked on their city centers, have created tourist-friendly districts, with lots of good hotels and restaurants and shops, places safe and friendly to stroll -- places, in short, to have fun. Cleveland doesn't have this, and desperately needs to work on it. Until you do, Cleveland will remain a city with lots of destinations -- but the city itself won't be a destination.
The commenter above who called me a moron may have had a point, so I'm open to rebuttals. Let's hear them.
Posted by: Richard Longworth | Saturday, December 04, 2010 at 09:57 PM
I have traveled a bit in America and Europe.Since im usually on a tight budget , i stay at Youth Hostels[ im 41 , but you can stay at hostels no matter what your age]
I wen to the very excellent HI Hostels in chicago and Madison WI.And i was asked by many foriegn travelers why there werent any other hostels in the midwest.Cleveland,Milwaukee,Pittsburgh[i know that its not technically in the "Midwest"],Cincinatti and Ann Arbor would be great cities to have hostels.
Yes, th e Midwest needs wealthy tourists to spend money there.But backpackers also spend money.And they spread word about places to visit.Most that i met had visited Chicago only becauseof thelong train ride across America.and Madison was an afterthought to most of the travelers. It was near Chicago and had a cheap hostel[$22 a night]. But once there they all were pleasantly surprised at how great the two cities were.most of the travelers told me that they were surprised to like Chicago more then New York and LA[i myself prefer Chicago to both]
My point is that if the residents of someof the midwestern cities sponsored some local hostels, it would bring in a lot of foriegn travelers who could put places like Cleveland "on the map" ,for foreign travelers to visit
Posted by: Pete from Baltimore | Sunday, December 05, 2010 at 10:51 PM
What an exciting thread...one of the most active posts I've seen!
As a native Ohioan, I do not interpret Mr. Longworth's comments as a Ohio "hater" more so then any one else, including many of the people who live in this state. His comments illustrate the exact point he is making. Ohio's cities and towns get very little exposure for anything, unless of course there is some sort negative event and then of course people fall over themselves to report it.
The truth is that Ohio (like other Midwestern states) simply gets thrown into that "in between" of the coasts. Little is said about the American Bicycle Museum in New Breman, Ohio, or the Neil Armstrong Museum in Wapakoneta, the Allen County Museum and their outstanding collection of Ohioania, the Air Force Museum at Wright Patterson, or Cincinnati's outstanding fire fighting museum. (If you are keeping track, these locations are just along I-75).
Ohio does need to do a better job, but, as an Ohioan, I need to do a better job of supporting these locations too.
Eric
Posted by: Eric | Monday, December 06, 2010 at 12:22 PM
I think we can all accurately whine that the top attraction in our city "isn't all there is", but really...the best-known attraction does represent the scene to an uninformed out-of-towner.
So out-of-towners probably do think of the casino (or maybe the Henry Ford or the Auto Show) when we think of Detroit. We associate the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame with Cleveland. The Arch with St. Louis. The Walker with Minneapolis. We think of The Indy 500, and the Air Force Museum in Dayton, and Ohio State Football in Columbus. Yes, all those cities offer a lot more, but seriously, would any of it besides the top attraction lure a New Yorker, San Franciscan, or Angeleno accustomed to their city's charms?
This simply points out that are only a few urban tourist amenities in the Midwest that are significantly "better" or different than those in the major coastal cities, and other than Chicago, none of the Midwest cities offers the full-on urban experience coupled with the amenities.
Midwestern cities other than Chicago are probably going to remain regional or niche tourist draws, while competing for the religious, hardware, and FFA conventions that represent a lot of Indy "tourism" today.
Spacious skies and amber waves of grain just don't grab people as much as bustling downtowns, purple-mountain majesty or beaches. I suspect more people flock to watch the swallows at Capistrano than the sandhill cranes at Jasper-Pulaski in Indiana or Grand Island in Nebraska. San Juan Capistrano is on a mountain near a beach halfway between LA and San Diego, and the swallows conveniently come back during Spring Break. Hard to beat that deal.
Posted by: Chris Barnett | Tuesday, December 07, 2010 at 09:43 AM
Another Clevelander and UrbanOhio guy here. There are some valid points here. I would posit that the Midwest is indeed bad at storytelling and bad at thinking of itself a destination, outside of Chicago as you noted. But I do have a couple of notes:
- I think most tourism research suggests that the overwhelming majority of visitation to the Midwest (outside Chicago again) is either business-related or familial in nature. The percentage of individuals who are coming to Midwestern cities without some other ulterior motive but simply to be in those cities is pretty limited, outside of exurban-to-city visitation. Most of that exurban-to-city visitation is going to be day trips, regardless of how nice the hotels are. For these visitors, I would argue that the sporting teams and casinos, etc., actually are a pretty significant driver for city spending.
- Thinking about tourism draw in the larger sense, I think Cleveland and Detroit benefit from having more distinct stories to tell. Their grittiness and authenticity may not be appealing for every demographic, but I would argue that their history, culture, innovations in re-use (urban farming, artist warehouses, etc., worker co-ops, etc.) and proximity to nature actually make them more appealing than some other Midwestern cities ... Not to pick on those cities at all. Just noting that while Cleveland and Detroit do need to continue to work on connectivity, I find that their stories are much richer, their raison d'etre to be stronger. And frankly, I find your statement that Cleveland doesn't have places that are fun to be a little overarching. As others have noted, our downtown has not only the Rock Hall and sporting complexes but several lively residential areas, as well as the second largest performing arts complex in the country ... And that's just downtown. It also has seen a pretty immense amount of revitalization in its neighborhoods, each of which has an incredible amount of character and backstory.
- Tourism data for Midwestern cities seems to be tough to find, but one comparison. Indianapolis estimates 2006 annual visitation of 21.9 million, while Cleveland estimates 2009 tourism of 13 million. Adjusted for population, that's 33.6 visitors per Cleveland resident and 22.8 visitors per Indianapolis resident. I know it's difficult to make apple-to-apple comparisons here, but barring any counterevidence, I do wonder how much your assertions about the relative tourism strength of various Midwestern cities are based on anectdotal experience and personal preference and how much on quantitative data.
Again, not to diminish your overarching point. Yes, we should do a better job as a region of explaining who we are and why people should care. But it's a little tough for Cleveland to take your assessment when the city has done so much over the past two decades to improve quality of life for both residents and visitors ... Particularly when a self-ascribed advocate for Midwestern tourism is the one making that needless aside about two particular Midwestern cities.
Posted by: Seth Beattie | Tuesday, December 07, 2010 at 05:19 PM
Another Clevelander and UrbanOhio guy here. There are some valid points here. I would posit that the Midwest is indeed bad at storytelling and bad at thinking of itself a destination, outside of Chicago as you noted. But I do have a couple of notes:
- I think most tourism research suggests that the overwhelming majority of visitation to the Midwest (outside Chicago again) is either business-related or familial in nature. The percentage of individuals who are coming to Midwestern cities without some other ulterior motive but simply to be in those cities is pretty limited, outside of exurban-to-city visitation. Most of that exurban-to-city visitation is going to be day trips, regardless of how nice the hotels are. For these visitors, I would argue that the sporting teams and casinos, etc., actually are a pretty significant driver for city spending.
- Thinking about tourism draw in the larger sense, I think Cleveland and Detroit benefit from having more distinct stories to tell. Their grittiness and authenticity may not be appealing for every demographic, but I would argue that their history, culture, innovations in re-use (urban farming, artist warehouses, etc., worker co-ops, etc.) and proximity to nature actually make them more appealing than some other Midwestern cities ... Not to pick on those cities at all. Just noting that while Cleveland and Detroit do need to continue to work on connectivity, I find that their stories are much richer, their raison d'etre to be stronger. And frankly, I find your statement that Cleveland doesn't have places that are fun to be a little overarching. As others have noted, our downtown has not only the Rock Hall and sporting complexes but several lively residential areas, as well as the second largest performing arts complex in the country ... And that's just downtown. It also has seen a pretty immense amount of revitalization in its neighborhoods, each of which has an incredible amount of character and backstory.
- Tourism data for Midwestern cities seems to be tough to find, but one comparison. Indianapolis estimates 2006 annual visitation of 21.9 million, while Cleveland estimates 2009 tourism of 13 million. Adjusted for population, that's 33.6 visitors per Cleveland resident and 22.8 visitors per Indianapolis resident. I know it's difficult to make apple-to-apple comparisons here, but barring any counterevidence, I do wonder how much your assertions about the relative tourism strength of various Midwestern cities are based on anectdotal experience and personal preference and how much on quantitative data.
Again, not to diminish your overarching point. Yes, we should do a better job as a region of explaining who we are and why people should care. But it's a little tough for Cleveland to take your assessment when the city has done so much over the past two decades to improve quality of life for both residents and visitors ... Particularly when a self-ascribed advocate for Midwestern tourism is the one making that needless aside about two particular Midwestern cities.
Posted by: Seth Beattie | Tuesday, December 07, 2010 at 05:39 PM
Seth, your Indy-Cleveland comparison may be mathematically correct but it is statistically and logically faulty. Cleveland is the larger metro area, 2.8M vs. 1.9M for Indy. Using that measure, your result would reverse: 11.5 visitors per metro Indy resident, 4.6 visitors per metro Cleveland resident.
So Richard's assertion is backed up by data. Indianapolis is attracting more than twice as many visitors per capita, on what is (according to the Cleveland boosters here) a smaller base of urban amenities.
"Why is that?" is certainly a fair question that Clevelanders should be asking themselves. Reciting a list of amenities and asserting that they are unmatched by competing cities is simply more evidence of the problem and doesn't lead to a solution, if there is one.
Posted by: Chris Barnett | Wednesday, December 08, 2010 at 09:01 AM
To be a tourist destination, you do need to have something not available everywhere. History, natural amenities, or a unique built environment. Boston, Philadelphia and DC have history. San Francisco, New Orleans, and Charleston have unique neighborhoods. Denver and Miami have natural ammenities.
When is the last time you took a vacation to Dallas, Charlotte, Sacramento, or Jacksonville? Never.
The Midwest's curse is that it is so central to the American identity that it is the familiar and the ordinary. You don't need to go see it because you already know it. The South is Southern because it is different from the North is this way and that. The West is Western because you don't see this or that back east.
Posted by: Anon | Thursday, December 09, 2010 at 08:24 AM
Point taken. However, I would note that the 13 million number is an estimate of tourism in Cuyahoga County, not in the larger 8-county Cleveland CMSA. Based on county population, the number is 10.3 visitors/resident. It was unclear to me whether Indy's numbers were for the metro or for the city level (which would place them at a 28.2 visitors/resident), although it appears most of the Global Insight firm's work is at the state or CSA level. Regardless, as noted, the point is well-taken.
Nonetheless, it would be helpful to see side-by-side data comparing cities across the Midwest. In the absence of that data, with nothing to see but general observations and assertions about relative tourism strength of these cities, I think it's absolutely appropriate to recite a list of amenities to counter what I think is a faulty perception of two particular cities. My assertions without statistical citation (and other posters) had no less validity than Richard's.
I agree that Cleveland, and other Midwestern cities, should do more to bolster tourism (although given the reality of Midwestern tourism promise, concentrating more largely on quality of life on behalf of residents might be more valuable). I also agree that all Midwestern cities are not equal in current tourism draw. I just disagree that these two particular cities are the true underperformers of our mega-region.
Posted by: Seth Beattie | Thursday, December 09, 2010 at 09:49 AM