Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Cubs Combat Casino
How To: Simple Salad Dressing
Mr. Burris Goes To Baghdad
Properly Sauced: Auditorium Cocktail
While combing the news feeds for morsels worthy of your attention we stumbled upon a positive review of Chicago as a tourist destination. The author gives a very British description of our city, describing the downtown area as having a “Tardis quality,” (a term from the 1960’s TV show "Dr. Who," which the Brits use to describe anything that seems of different size on the inside than it does on the outside) and he does not once mention The Bulls or The Mafia.
Look sharp next time you see camera-toting foreigners though: according to a tour guide, we Chicagoans will kindly give directions to any and all baffled tourists who approach us. Unfortunately, the author didn’t happen upon the Chicagoist website. We’re sure his visit would have been that much more enjoyable and well-informed after reading the infamous Chicagoist Guide to Chicago (PDF).
What does Chicago look like to the British?
“Kinder than you could have imagined”
“The least pretentious great waterfront in the developed world”
“The world's finest modern urban park”
And the bean?
“A giant globule of liquid mercury hanging in the air”
With quotes like those we’re wondering if our visitor spent a little too much time at the bars. Or maybe the office of tourism is just that skilled at putting positive spin on what us residents see as everyday occurrences.
So tell all your wealthy friends in Europe and the UK to come in for a visit. Next spring/summer would be a great time. We don’t want them missing all the fine landscapes and Midwestern hospitality because they are too busy watching snow pile up and thermometers dropping ever lower.
Thanks to Abmarfia for the image!
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Love the article, and thanks for the good read, but (quoting):
"...for the best of Chicago, take a lift to the cocktail bar on the 94th floor of the John Hancock building and sip a dry martini while watching the sun set behind Lake Michigan..."
Uhh, what? Since when did the sun set on that side?
Also, isn't the Signature Room on the 95th floor? How many dry martinis did that guy have?
Guys, it's England! Everything happens on the other side over there!
that article was glowing, to say the least. he didn't find one bad thing about chicago? even i wonder about that. not to complain, but his tone seemed very naive. and the part about daley is classic, though i don't expect a briton to know all the dealings daley's done.
Just a clarification - Doctor Who started in the 60's, but it continued to run through the late 80's. It has made a return, and the second season of the newest generation can be seen on the Sci-Fi channel. It's actually a pretty good show, check it out if you get a chance.
And of course this Brit spent most of his time in our Pubs. I think it's England's national pastime...
Well, it's hard to find much fault when you don't go far beyond Millenium Park and the lakefront. But I'll hand it to him on the politeness--I found it almost eerie how nice people can be out here.
My initial impressions upon visiting were that it was a glaringly clean playground/wonderland, with clever fountains and ferris wheels ... then I moved here and started exploring, and found that it's also 3-flats and broken glass, and trash and a weird chocolate smell, and run-down-ness and mind-blowing wealth, and it's loud as hell in some places and almost too quiet in others, and really nice people with a great sense of pride about where they live. In other words, and please pardon my trite poeticisms here, it's everything a city is supposed to be ... would be nice if that could have been reflected in this article.
anyone read the economist review of chicago? it was a very different take on the city by a briton. he basically said chicago is the best it will ever be and will not get better because of population decline and political corruption. he might be right, but then again I doubt he had any martinis at the signature room.
I know that the city has been trying and mildly succeding in cleaning up the chicago river, to describe it as clear and blue is a tad bonkers.
What this city suffers from is a lack of being inviting to tourists. There's really no connection between the CTA and tourist interests available in an easy to digest format. I'll explain...
Sure, there are the big guns like Millenium Park, the museums, Navy Pier, Hancock bldg. and Sears Tower, Michigan Ave. shopping, architecture boat tours, etc.
But what attracts people and guides them to the other areas of the city that are not downtown? What brings people up to Armitage to shop? What brings tourists to Wicker Park, what brings them up to Lincoln Square to restaurants? What attracts them to Andersonville? Etc., etc...
I think the city does a lousy job of promoting much more than the obvious attractions. Sure, there are web sites with city guides, and sites similiar to Chicagoist with reviews, suggestions, etc. that are targeted to a more local audience but completely beneficial to tourists.
I just think that tourists miss out on too many hidden gems (to a tourist) because this info, and the location of such things, is not readily available by the CTA or a tourist committee. I hope some day there are some better promotional signs on various CTA platforms that literally tell you "What's around here?" and list local shops and restaurants. Hell, I live here and I'd even like that quite a bit.
To 'The Curmedgeon': Great points, and I agree. But, how is this different from pretty much anywhere else? Folks like you and I may have an internal drive to explore the neighborhoods of the various places we choose to visit (I try to blend in and feel like a "resident for a day"), but I don't know many cities which encourage their tourists to go out and explore the neighborhoods.
I guess I'm just sayin': Tourists are going to miss out on hidden gems in every city they visit. The tourists who have the drive to get out into the neighborhoods DO make it there, and many times they don't stand out as tourists. It'd be nice if Chicago was different and inviting in this respect, but I wouldn't hold it against Chicago either.
Stephan,
Good points. While writing that I guess I was thinking of a great trip I had to San Francisco a couple years ago, and thinking how easy it is to get around there, and just stumble upon some great places.
In the context of the major attractions in Chicago, what does one just "stumble" upon? It's in the areas away from downtown that more unique things are found.
san fran is the most unwelcoming tourist city in the country, they box them all in downtown and that horrid fisherman's wharf area. there's one train line (the bart) basically for the whole city and most tourist go around the 'cable car' area only. I've lived in nyc, chicago, boston and san fran and i'd say out of all 4 of those cities, by far chicago does the best job of making the city accessible for tourists starting from the blue line to o'hare to all the great street/nabe festivals in the summer. i mean seriously, how many tourists in san fran do you think make it to the mission compared to the number in chicago who make it to wicker park?
chicago needs more train lines. fact. that said most of the city guide books encourage neigborhood exploring and tell most people very well how they can get around. that said it doesn't sound like this english guy got farther than the hancock.
But how many tourists even want to venture beyond the Loop, Navy Pier and Wrigleyville? You can lead a horse to water ....