Tourism in Charlotte

[mad_park]

Atlanta had the Gold Club which was major tourist attraction before the feds shut it down.

[ssh214]

I really like that idea of a flight museum, it makes perfect sense. Take a page from the museum in DC, obviously it is not going to be as big but it could be very nice, or add it to Discovery Place or something, but I really like that site behind the new African American Center. This could attract large numbers of people, its one of those small yet attractive and effective tourist attractions.

[Spartan]

All of those things in Atlanta are great. I've even been to most of them. They are all good destinations, but they are spread all over the city. But none of them scream out to me "hey I have to check that out." I'd also argue that Charlotte suffers form the same problem.

Maybe its just my preferences, but I'd rather go some where like Greenville, SC, which has comparatively few "destinations" but has a great urban space (Main Street) to explore.

[urban980]

Charlotte actually ranked number 26 as of four years ago when it came to most visited city in the US. Anyway, I say Charlotte should continue to make Uptown and the surrrounding neighborhoods more urban. That would go a long way towards making the city more desirable to visit.

[sakami]

Hahaha. The funniest part of this is that people from other cities still ask about the Gold Club when I tell them I'm from Atlanta. Love it or hate it people truly saw it as a destination.

Atlanta had the Gold Club which was major tourist attraction before the feds shut it down.

[Lady Celeste]

All of those things in Atlanta are great. I've even been to most of them. They are all good destinations, but they are spread all over the city. But none of them scream out to me "hey I have to check that out." I'd also argue that Charlotte suffers form the same problem.

Maybe its just my preferences, but I'd rather go some where like Greenville, SC, which has comparatively few "destinations" but has a great urban space (Main Street) to explore.

[urban980]

Spartan that may be the case because Atlanta is not the city for you. Quite honestly I would hate for any city to try to be everything for everybody. Nothing screams out to you in Atlanta but clearly it does to millions of people every year. Are we trying to come up with tourist ideas specifically geared to you or to tourist as a whole. The one thing that could possibly stick with Charlotte may not appeal to you...but that doesn't make it that less important. In 2007 Forbes ran the numbers and Atlanta came in 6th with 37 million visitors.

[ssh214]

Urban980 don't forget most of those 16 million visitors come for business, not pleasure, they had no choice but to come to Charlotte. But I'm sorry, what is this Gold Club, maybe I'm too young to know.

[fortyniner]

Five times the existing retail (although nice) would not make Charlotte a shopping mecca for people beyond 100 miles.

Major league baseball-same. It's not UNIQUE. Restaurants? Would someone from Dallas fly in for just dinner?

Sugar Creek greenway? Will it be even half as much FUN as the RiverWalk in San Antonio? Would you shell out a thousand dollars to take your family to San Antonio JUST to see the RiverWalk? The Alamo? What a disappointment!!

Europeans want to see Miami Beach, not downtown Miami. They want NYC, maybe DC, Miami Beach, (the French might want to check out New Orleans-at least they did pre-Katrina), Vegas (also probably the number one American tourist destination for Asians, followed by Honolulu), San Francisco, and for the brave, southern California. Almost everyone wants to see Orlando's attractions- at least once. Does anyone on this board who doesn't go there for business want to go to Singapore? It's clean- cleaner than Charlotte, and it may still be against the law to chew gum there. Talk about your Tidy Town. If you're not talking business conventions, where do Americans want to go in the USA for a FUN time with the family? Denver for skiing, any beach where the water isn't freezing, San Francisco for the architecture, hippy past, great bay, nearby redwoods, and reputable dining. NYC for the big urban experience, DC for the history and seat of government, and the Smithsonians, Boston for some for the history and eccentricity of New England, Vegas for the big casinos and the dam in the desert. I'm leaving out Branson, Williamsburg, and national parks, and Atlantic City for being Atlantic City (although they now have some pretty good downtown retail), and many other smaller "destination" cities.

For Charlotte, we do have the very poorly marked destination of the National Whitewater Assoc. and will soon have the NASCAR HOF, sure we'll have some really nice museums (would you drive 500 miles to see one of them?) In my mind (at this late hour) we have ONE unique thing, and that's the disputed history of the Meck Deck and the undisputed history of the Mecklenburg Resolves. I think if someone opened a food and/or drink establishment near Independence Square (who outside of the Carolinas could even name our Square?) and called it "A Trifling Place" (that's what Washington called Charlotte on his later life Southern tour) or something to commemorate that and the signings (Captain Jack's statue will be hidden to most visitors on the greenway), it would be something no one else could claim (including Philly). After all, we (Mecklenburg) were the First Free Land in America. Of course, the Virginians and Bostonians had an interest in diminishing our role in America's early history, and Charlottetown was no Philadelphia by a long shot.

Point is, all the space needles, merry go rounds, Gucci stores, and Emerile's won't make us UNIQUE. But, we already ARE. We just need our leaders and movers and shakers to find a way to tell our story. Alas, no edifaces from that era still exist, so that part will need to be "manufactured." The history is real, though. The May 20, 1775 date is even emblazened on the NC flag. In those days, the Great State of Mecklenburg was actually admired around the state. Up until the establishment of the MLK holiday, the Meck Deck day was a city holiday and the parade was a real parade, not just a few veterans and a drum and bugle corps. Presidents came here to celebrate it (Eisenhour was here on May 20, 1954 to dedicate FREEDOM Park). We've lost a lot of old buildings, yes, some even moderately historic, but there is still time to re-dedicate and for the first time, adequately MARKET Charlotte as the birthplace of America's independence from the greatest empire in history.

[New Name]

^And revisionalist history (especially with something as sacred as American history) usually promotes itself. 1/2 the country would be surprised to hear that claim to fame, the 1/2 half would be furious.

[krazeeboi]

All of those things in Atlanta are great. I've even been to most of them. They are all good destinations, but they are spread all over the city. But none of them scream out to me "hey I have to check that out." I'd also argue that Charlotte suffers form the same problem.

Maybe its just my preferences, but I'd rather go some where like Greenville, SC, which has comparatively few "destinations" but has a great urban space (Main Street) to explore.

[monsoon]

While I appreciate the history of the Mecklenburg declaration, it's the suggestion this would be equivalent to the Declaration of Independence or that it preempted it, which causes it to not get much traction. Mecklenburg's resolve, occurred in a remote outpost that most had never heard of, and they were only speaking for themselves. The Declaration of Independence was a very public repudiation of the the King of England signed by some the most notable people of the day including representatives of all the colonies/states. Mecklenburg's case isn't helped much by the fact there is no physical evidence, such as a written document, the event ever took place. I think at best, if the city did promote it again, it would be more a curiosity than something which was hugely significant to American history.

If such historical documents or other evidence could be found, then I would see the case for building a special museum to show it off.

[Charlotte_native]

I have been saying this for years as well! I've never understood why North Carolina doesn't have a major Air and Space Museum. I think Charlotte should be the first to jump on that idea.

[fortyniner]

Not trying to take anything away from the Liberty Bell or Paul Revere...just saying what is UNIQUE to Charlotte. I think something more in line with an IMAX rather than a "museum" could excite the locals. No way anyone outside the region should be excited, if WE'RE not.

Maybe something historical will happen here in the future. If it does, let's preserve a building or two.

Meanwhile, we have a nice place here, and attractions like the Whitewater Center, Carowinds, some pro sports, the LYNX, a moderately sized convention center, a few good places to eat and shop, NASCAR HOF and 2 big stock car races, a couple of lakes, and a hope for some college football (49ers) and the ACC football championship, a PGA tour stop, Myers Park/Eastover, SouthEnd, NoDa, Plaza/Midwood, Fourth Ward, a busy airport with great connections, and...well nothing really to make Charlotte a "tourist attraction," but quite a bit either here or soon to be here that makes the Queen City a great place to live. Maybe we should work on keeping that and working to remove any negatives (crime, traffic, schools, high taxes, blighted areas, empty big boxes, tree-less subdivisions that will be blighted and abandoned in no time, lack of street level retail in uptown, ubiquitous power lines, narrow or no sidewalks, lack of connectivity in the burbs, lack of a medical school, summer droughts and winter ice storms, the list goes on). Let's make our hometown better each year. We can't change the climate, geography, or past history, but judging from the Charlotte of 2009 vs. 1979, given another generation of achievers, we could become a magnet for responsible growth, but probably never a "tourist attraction" in the sense we think of that term.

[NcSc74]

What would make a family or couple of friends want to come to Charlotte for a weekend or a week. The neighborhoods and city spaces are a part of the attraction draw but not what makes a midwestern family spend hundreds to come to the QC. What the real question is does Charlotte really want to become that type of city. In order to get to that point the city would have to sell out on some of the things that has gotten it to the point it is now. It is my opinion that once a city/metro gets big enough that type of tourist draw almost always comes hand in hand. Unless of course the city was blessed with a large river, harbour or mountains. Let Charlotte continue to mature and then we will see the visitor numbers climb.

[Spartan]

Spartan that may be the case because Atlanta is not the city for you. Quite honestly I would hate for any city to try to be everything for everybody. Nothing screams out to you in Atlanta but clearly it does to millions of people every year. Are we trying to come up with tourist ideas specifically geared to you or to tourist as a whole. The one thing that could possibly stick with Charlotte may not appeal to you...but that doesn't make it that less important. In 2007 Forbes ran the numbers and Atlanta can in 6th with 37 million visitors.

So you all must ask yourselves...are you discussing urbanity or tourism. If we are discussing both...which they are not synonomus...then name me one city (outside of NYC and Chicago) where you can walk to every destination offered in one day.

[Creasy336]

Maybe Charlotte could take advantage of it's proximity to the Catawba River. Is the river deep enough to support some sort of boat? Maybe Lake Norman could add something to draw in tourist.

[monsoon]

.....Is the river deep enough to support some sort of boat? Maybe Lake Norman could add something to draw in tourist.

[Lady Celeste]

Quite frankly Atlanta is not for me, and I'm not trying to get anyone to explain to me how or why it should be. For that matter, if I didn't live in Charlotte it wouldn't be for me either.

My argument is that quality urbanism leads to tourism. We don't need to build more things for people to do because that will come with good development. I want Charlotte to be a city where people say "hey lets go to Charlotte for a week." I don't think that it works that way now. I think its more like "I have to go to Charlotte for a week."

When people think about their favorite cities to visit, they are typically places with a rich urban fabric and a historic feel, even if its not a very historic place. I think about Vancouver, BC, or San Diego, CA. This is a city with a very modern, but pure, urbanism. It gets plenty of tourists for all reasons. Charlotte could easily be an attractive modern, urban, metropolis, since it basically has the historic architecture of any western city and the willingness to destroy what it has left.

[teshadoh]

Sorry spartan - I've been to San Diego several times & to Vancouver. Yes - tourist destinations. But no - not do to their urban climate. San Diego does have the very touristy Gaslight District which is the old downtown. Otherwise people go to La Jola (?), Coronado or Mission Beach. Otherwise San Diego actually isn't that 'urbane' as you would think. Vancouver on the other hand is extremely high dense. But in the sense of it being a tourist destination due to that is rather false. There isn't a lot that is charming about it's downtown - excluding Stanley Park.

I would agree urbanity is not a qualifier for tourism, otherwise some of North America's largest cities would receive far more tourists (Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Detroit, etc.). It helps to have that combination as San Francisco, New York City, Chicago or even New Orleans & Charleston have. That is an inviting urban atmosphere as well as specific sites to see.

Otherwise, I don't think Charlotte is too far off from being a larger tourist draw. All it takes are a few more museums or attractions (and not neccessarily in downtown) & also a larger arts community & it's there.

[mo1217]

I must say, Lady Celeste, you definitely got your point across with me. I don't know if Spartan understood your unbiased and quite informative explanations regarding Tourism and Urbanity, but I certainly did. THANKS

[atlrvr]

Does anyone know of any attempts to quantify exactly how much recreation ONLY tourism occurs in each city. That is how many people visit Charlotte and Atlanta and other cities without there being another agenda (i.e. business, sports, friends, family, etc) In other words, how many people visit a city simply because they say, "Hey, I've always wanted to go to Cleveland".

It would be a great research project to see what cities draw tourists based on the merits of that city and from what radius they attract. For instance, I've gone to Atlanta for a weekend just to "do stuff", but never Dallas, which I consider a comparable city, just because Atlanta is convenient. I've also been to Seattle "just to go" which is much further, but is specifically more appealing to me as a visitor.

Sounds like a great regression analysis, anyone want to fund me with a grant?

[monsoon]

^I guess that really depends upon one's definition of recreation only tourism. Certainly this is going to differ between people and also change for those people depending upon where they are in life. It also probably depends upon previous experience.

[CharlotteDave]

Concerning some of the earlier comments related to Meck Dec., I would love to see it celebrated again the way it used to be or in whatever new form it might take. One thing I believe might help would be to broaden the scope a bit and put more focus on Charlotte's overall dramatic role during that period. The endless controversy over Mec Dec seems to obscure every thing else. In particular, they should probably play up the Mecklenburg Resolves a lot more and for more reasons than one. The Resolves are sort of like an historical safety net for Charlotte: Since no one doubts the validity of that document, it means we can know with certainty that most of the events surrounding Mec Dec are true: the reading from the courthouse steps, Captain Jack's ride, etc. The only question is which document was involved, but either way, it makes for one hell of a story. The Resolves are an important document in their own right and highly respected by historians. If Mec Dec wasn't a true document, that would mean that all the things in the historical record normally attributed to Mec Dec would automatically transfer to the Mecklenburg Resolves. That includes comments like the ones below, some from the British perspecitive:

In a letter of June 30, 1775 to the British Colonial Secretary, North Carolina Royal Governor Josiah Martin writes:

"The Resolves of the Committee of Mecklenburg which your Lordship will find in the enclosed Newspaper, surpass all the horrid and treasonable publications that the inflammatory spirits of this Continent have yet produced, and your Lordship may depend its Authors and Abettors will not escape my due notice whenever my hands are sufficiently strengthened to attempt the recovery of the lost authority of Government. A copy of these Resolves I am informed were sent off by express to the Congress at Philadelphia as soon as they were passed in the Committee."

A couple months later the Governor writes to the people of North Carolina:

"I have also seen a most infamous publication in the Cape Fear Mercury importing to be resolves of a set of people stiling themselves a Committee of the County of Mecklenburg most traitorously declaring the entire dissolution of the Laws Government and Constitution of this country and setting up a system of rule and regulation repugnant to the laws and subversive of His Majesty's Government..."

In a letter dated June 27, 1775, a Moravian bishop in Salem, North Carolina, reports to his colleagues in Germany:

"We had a quiet and blessed month, although around us the unrest increases. In Mecklenburg County, where they have unseated all Magistrates and put Select Men in their places, they are threatening to force people, and us in particular, to sign a Declaration stating whether we hold with the King or with Boston, but we thinking for the present they are only threats."

As for Charlotte's overall role during the revolutionary period, Colonel Banastre Tarleton of His Majesty's British Legion sums in up well in his history of the Revolutionary War,:

"It was evident, and it has been frequently mentioned to the King's officers, that the counties of Mecklenburg and Rohan [Rowan] were more hostile to England than any other in America: "The town [Charlotte] and environs abounded with inveterate enemies."

All of the above helps make the case that it's a story worth celebrating regardless of which document or documents were involved. To be clear, I'm not saying that Mec Dec didn't happen,.but barring a discovery of new information, it's clear that the masses will never be convinced. That's why I think it would be best to focus on more than just that one aspect of the story. Hopefully, when the Captain Jack Plaza is completed next year and eventually the trail of history, those things will bring some new opportunities to highlight Charlotte's revolutionary history.

[Spartan]

Y'all seem to be arguing against points I didn't make. Apples and oranges are both fruit, and we enjoy eating them for a variety for reasons.

I completely agree that people don't go to a city just to see buildings and urban development. People's perception of their environment is by and large a subconscious act. Most people don't think about it at all. People are drawn to places that are attractive for various reasons, and architecture/urbanity plays a role in that equation, and I never said it was the only thing people go to see. It is not coincidence that a lot of cities have prime access to nature. To ignore this is to ignore why these cities came to exist.

People don't go to any city to sit in traffic and see the suburban shopping mall or do anything they can do at home (though I did get some perverse pleasure while sitting in LA traffic ). People who go to cities do so to experience what makes it unique, which almost always includes a downtown-like area in addition to its natural setting. To that end, name any city where people go to visit/vacation and DONT go to a downtown or downtown-like area. Its not a conscious effort. People are just drawn to these things when they travel to cities.

To that end, why are Americans so fascinated with Europe? Why do people by the millions go to see ancient Greek and Roman cities? Why do our tourist-mecca's have shopping districts that function like real city streets? What is a shopping mall but an air-conditioned pedestrian street? Why does new commercial development pattern itself after Main Street USA in Disney World? Why do people pay top dollar to live in a place that mimics the true city experience (Seaside, FL, Celebration, FL)? Why is it that in every city across America, our most cherished neighborhoods are also our oldest and most urban? Do the Yankees and Californians really go to Charleston for its beaches and history? Do you honestly expect me to believe that people are so oblivious to their surroundings that they only travel to cities to see some water and the big flashy lights of the next tourist trap? I don't buy it.

My point is that the way we build our city will directly influence the potential tourism dollars in the future. Some people want to focus on destinations and activities, which is fine. I am focusing on the experience of the "sense of place." This is a real phenomenon and it influences far more than you think. To create a tourist trap is easy. To create a great city is to make it a quality urban experience, and make it for the people who live there. The tourists will follow. Go ahead and throw rust belt cities out there. Tourism isn't immune to the economy. People don't want to go to an economically depressed place, and to make such a claim is asinine. However, I've heard about Detroit's downtown comeback since the Superbowl, and you can't ignore the success of Baltimore's Inner Harbor district and cities like Grand Rapids. Vancouver may be a nature lover's paradise, but if it weren't an intensely urban place can you honestly say that it would hold the same level of attraction to visitors? Urbanity in and of itself is not a cure-all, but doing it right will lead to better things that ignoring it and/or doing it wrong.