Traveling around the States

(Miguel Cruz) wrote in message ...
jjp wrote:
"Jorn" wrote:
SF and Washington DC are very nice

Dallas and Houston, nothing much to see there,

Actually NASA is in Houston, and so is one of the country's better
museum districts, the largest medical center district, the second
largest theatre district (after New York's Broadway), and a great
restaurant scene... for those interested in these sorts of things.
Also several new sports venues that are probably worth seeing.

Wow, a large medical center district! Maybe I'll cancel my planned
sight-seeing excursion to the Mayo Clinic and try that instead.

It is really something to see, though better from the air.

The problem with these things in this context is that while they're nice
amenities for people stuck living in Houston,

Most of us aren't stuck, we actually like it.

they aren't sufficiently
superlative to warrant a special trip, especially for someone coming from
overseas who has to pick just a few cities to visit.

I mentioned it because he said he was already planning to come to
Houston.

If you want good food,
go to San Francisco or New York.

There are lots of cities with good food. And Houston tends to have
more reasonable prices than these places.

If you want theater, go to New York. If you

Yes, number one. But Houston's got a great scene too.

want museums, go wherever the best ones are in your area of interest
(Washington DC, Los Angeles, New York, etc.). If you want to see "new sports
venues", God help you.

I think the downtown baseball field in Houston is worth seeing. If you
don't, perhaps you're just not interested in architecture or
technology.

I think only the Space Center could really be considered a legitimate draw,
and that only appeals to certain people.

Austin tends to be overrated, but the state capital is a good attraction.

Austin actually does have something it's about the best at, and which is
close to unique: a tremendously dynamic live music scene.

I think that's overrated too. It used to be better in the past.

I have a feeling you're not much of an expert with either city, at
least with how they are present-day. Well, I've been a resident of
both within the last 5-6 years.

jjp wrote:
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
Austin actually does have something it's about the best at, and which is
close to unique: a tremendously dynamic live music scene.

I think that's overrated too. It used to be better in the past.

I have a feeling you're not much of an expert with either city, at
least with how they are present-day. Well, I've been a resident of
both within the last 5-6 years.

Well, you're right about my expertise. I've been to Houston for a few days,
and Austin for a couple weeks. I'm not particularly keen to go back to
either, but Houston really turned me off. I found it to be a really
pedestrian-hostile place (and tourists are more likely to be pedestrians)
and quite soulless compared to older cities.

The fact that you can defend its merits from the perspective of a resident
doesn't change the fact that as a visitor I didn't like it (and I am far
from alone in this). If I have to be convinced, rather than having it appeal
to me on its own evident strengths, then I think I can find other places to
spend my time where it's easier to enjoy myself and feel stimulated.

On the other hand, I'm just one person, with my own weird tastes, so it
doesn't matter all that much what I think. I'm just sharing my opinion.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

In article ,
"Rowan Bridge" wrote:

I've managed to arrange three weeks off work in December and I wanted to
travel around the US a bit. I've been to some of the east coast and Chicago,
but not much else really. The only real criteria is that whereever I go
needs to be reasonably easy to get around by public transport. I was
thinking of going to San Francisco for a few days, on to maybe Dallas or
Houston, Altanta and then stopping off in Washington for a few days to see a
friend of mine. I don't know how feasible such a trip is or indeed what the
cheapest way of doing it would be, so all suggestions welcome.

From what I have heard, Dalas, Houston and Atlanta do not have good
public transportation systems. If you don't mind the cold weather,
Chicago is interesting and it is well served by public transit, but you
could easily spend your entire trip in San Francisco which has a great
public transportation system. New Orleans is another option worth
considering. So are Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington DC.

In article ,
Rowan Bridge wrote:

I've managed to arrange three weeks off work in December and I wanted to
travel around the US a bit. I've been to some of the east coast and Chicago,
but not much else really. The only real criteria is that whereever I go
needs to be reasonably easy to get around by public transport.

You have time enough to do something a bit different. I would suggest
some combinatin of the following:

1. Pick your favorite U.S. city and spend some extended time there.
Living as a temporary local, you'll find things to do that you'd never
manage in a short visit. I've done two 3-week visits to Berlin and had
great times both times. SF or Chicago would be manageable, of course, as
would NYC. Smaller cities might be more affordable--consider looking into
Seattle or Portland, Philadelphia or Boston. And don't rule out the
Canadian cities--they tend to be a bit cheaper than the U.S.

2. Pick a college town and spend some extended time there. They're
usually easy to visit and easy to get around. The catch is that early
December is usually a dead time in the school year, which means that
accomodations will be cheap but that there won't be so much going on. A
college town with a bit more going on than just the college would be a
good compromise--consider Columbus, Ohio; Ann Arbor, Michigan; or Madison,
Wisconsin.

3. Make an extended tour of the West coast: Starting in Juneau, Alaska,
you can get a combination of ferries and bus down to Vancouver. From
there you can bus or train your way down to Seattle, Portland, San
Francisco, Monterey, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles and San Diego. Only the
Portland-San Franciso leg is a really long one, and you could fly that one
if you wanted.

4. If snow arrives early, you'll find yourself in a good position to do
some ski bumming if that's your thing.



--
---
Eric Holeman Chicago Illinois USA

"Eric Holeman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rowan Bridge wrote:

I've managed to arrange three weeks off work in December and I wanted to
travel around the US a bit. I've been to some of the east coast and
Chicago,
but not much else really. The only real criteria is that whereever I go
needs to be reasonably easy to get around by public transport.

You have time enough to do something a bit different. I would suggest
some combinatin of the following:

1. Pick your favorite U.S. city and spend some extended time there.
Living as a temporary local, you'll find things to do that you'd never
manage in a short visit. I've done two 3-week visits to Berlin and had
great times both times. SF or Chicago would be manageable, of course, as
would NYC. Smaller cities might be more affordable--consider looking into
Seattle or Portland, Philadelphia or Boston. And don't rule out the
Canadian cities--they tend to be a bit cheaper than the U.S.


All good suggestions in summer but less so in December

2. Pick a college town and spend some extended time there. They're
usually easy to visit and easy to get around. The catch is that early
December is usually a dead time in the school year, which means that
accomodations will be cheap but that there won't be so much going on. A
college town with a bit more going on than just the college would be a
good compromise--consider Columbus, Ohio; Ann Arbor, Michigan; or Madison,
Wisconsin.


I spent 3 years in Columbus Ohio and as a nice a place as it
is I couldnt support the suggestion someone spend 3 weeks
vacation there, especially in December. Grey skies, bitter
cold and Ice Storms arent the things that make great holidays.

3. Make an extended tour of the West coast: Starting in Juneau, Alaska,
you can get a combination of ferries and bus down to Vancouver. From
there you can bus or train your way down to Seattle, Portland, San
Francisco, Monterey, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles and San Diego. Only the
Portland-San Franciso leg is a really long one, and you could fly that one
if you wanted.


That would be a mistake, the coastal highway from
Portland through Oregon and Northen California
is magnificent.

4. If snow arrives early, you'll find yourself in a good position to do
some ski bumming if that's your thing.


Trouble is none of the places you recommend are ski resorts.

Keith

consider Columbus, Ohio; Ann Arbor, Michigan; or
Madison, Wisconsin.

I couldnt support the suggestion someone spend 3
weeks vacation [in Columbus], especially in December.


I agree. I lived in Columbus for several years and although I
liked the city, it's not exactly a big tourist destination, especially
in the winter when it's cold and overcast most of the time. And
college activities are curtailed in December as students are gone
for Christmas break anyway.

If you wanted to go the route of living in a college town in
December, I'd pick one in the south or west instead where the
weather was more moderate.

James

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Remove "NOSPAM" from my address when sending me e-mail.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-

The only college town I can imagine vacationing at for Christmas is
Williamsburg. FFM

JamesStep wrote:

consider Columbus, Ohio; Ann Arbor, Michigan; or
Madison, Wisconsin.

I couldnt support the suggestion someone spend 3
weeks vacation [in Columbus], especially in December.

I agree. I lived in Columbus for several years and although I
liked the city, it's not exactly a big tourist destination, especially
in the winter when it's cold and overcast most of the time. And
college activities are curtailed in December as students are gone
for Christmas break anyway.

If you wanted to go the route of living in a college town in
December, I'd pick one in the south or west instead where the
weather was more moderate.

James

(Miguel Cruz) wrote in message ...
jjp wrote:
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
Austin actually does have something it's about the best at, and which is
close to unique: a tremendously dynamic live music scene.

I think that's overrated too. It used to be better in the past.

I have a feeling you're not much of an expert with either city, at
least with how they are present-day. Well, I've been a resident of
both within the last 5-6 years.

Well, you're right about my expertise. I've been to Houston for a few days,
and Austin for a couple weeks. I'm not particularly keen to go back to
either, but Houston really turned me off. I found it to be a really
pedestrian-hostile place (and tourists are more likely to be pedestrians)
and quite soulless compared to older cities.

Well, this is true, as it is about most sunbelt cities. But certain
areas of town are more pedestrian-friendly, like the theatre district
in downtown and the museum district...

The fact that you can defend its merits from the perspective of a resident
doesn't change the fact that as a visitor I didn't like it (and I am far
from alone in this). If I have to be convinced, rather than having it appeal
to me on its own evident strengths, then I think I can find other places to
spend my time where it's easier to enjoy myself and feel stimulated.

Everyone I've had come visit me has been very pleasantly surprised.
But that may have at least something to do with the fact that I know
where to go, what to see, and the best ways to get around.

jjp wrote:
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
The fact that you can defend its merits from the perspective of a
resident doesn't change the fact that as a visitor I didn't like it (and
I am far from alone in this). If I have to be convinced, rather than
having it appeal to me on its own evident strengths, then I think I can
find other places to spend my time where it's easier to enjoy myself and
feel stimulated.

Everyone I've had come visit me has been very pleasantly surprised.
But that may have at least something to do with the fact that I know
where to go, what to see, and the best ways to get around.

Always seems to be this way. It's also amazing how much better info comes
from locals who know the place, than from guidebooks.

In New York and a few other cities they have volunteer greeters who will
show off their town to interested visitors. I wonder if the same would work
in places that don't receive quite so many tourists.

Unfortunately one thing that makes it work in New York is that the city is
best seen on foot and by transit. I guess people would be a little reluctant
to get in cars with strangers.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

(Miguel Cruz) wrote in message ...
jjp wrote:
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
The fact that you can defend its merits from the perspective of a
resident doesn't change the fact that as a visitor I didn't like it (and
I am far from alone in this). If I have to be convinced, rather than
having it appeal to me on its own evident strengths, then I think I can
find other places to spend my time where it's easier to enjoy myself and
feel stimulated.

Everyone I've had come visit me has been very pleasantly surprised.
But that may have at least something to do with the fact that I know
where to go, what to see, and the best ways to get around.

Always seems to be this way. It's also amazing how much better info comes
from locals who know the place, than from guidebooks.

Very true... I don't think my last trip to London would have been
quite as good if not for my friend who showed me around...



In New York and a few other cities they have volunteer greeters who will
show off their town to interested visitors. I wonder if the same would work
in places that don't receive quite so many tourists.

Unfortunately one thing that makes it work in New York is that the city is
best seen on foot and by transit. I guess people would be a little reluctant
to get in cars with strangers.

miguel